BAT Kol and alternative moderation

Ryan Gomez4 said:Look, nobody’s forcing you to read anything or post anything. It’s not like anyone’s going to stumble onto an FDA manual on pet care and decide all animals need to be wiped out, yet a huge crowd thinks it's perfectly fine to show up on the alternative sites just to mock everything being said.

Got it. I don't really read up on or comment on magic, astrology, or that whole scene—just isn't really my thing, I guess.

Medjugorje—well, when you see things like that on na rub znanost... scienceSo, some thread just popped up about summoning demons while opening up tunnels... which, honestly, is a bit much even for this corner of the internet, I guess....you know, maybe we really ought to give this some actual thought for once.

Look, I’m totally against attacking anyone personally—really, I am—but when people start dropping these completely nonsensical claims without even having a basic grasp of what science actually is... well, I don't think it's wrong to point out how absurd it all sounds. Maybe even throw a little irony into the mix. No insults intended, obviously. Just being real.

There are actually some really fascinating topics floating around here that would be great to dive into—if people could just stay on track for once. But instead, everything immediately devolves into talk about anti-gravity blue pebbles, crystal suns, or those supposed universal equations of the cosmos... you know how it goes.

I mean, I’ve been thinking... maybe there's some connection between demons and the Moon—which, you know, is actually lightyears away from us. Or at least, that's what we're told. I guess it's all just a bit much to wrap your head around, isn't it? Maybe. 50 miles They aren't even close to being on the edge of science—not by a long shot. 🤷.

Things have really gone off the rails here. I mean, how can anyone think there's an actual discussion happening with Elizabeth Jackson when people are constantly taking things out of context just to accuse others of ruining the debate?

Yeah, sure, I might crack a joke when faced with something totally ridiculous, but I always try to find the source behind a claim, no matter how wild it sounds. And look, if you want proof that Carol Lopez23 is doing a fair job—meaning she isn't playing favorites or protecting anyone Elizabeth Jackson gets mad at—just look at the last warning I got. It was completely uncalled for. Basically, some user told me that because I eat meat, I must be eating dogs. So, I replied that saying I eat dogs is an idiotic claim. And wouldn't you know it? Elizabeth Jackson jumped in to say *I* was calling someone an idiot. I only did that after being told repeatedly that I eat dogs and corpses and all sorts of other nonsense... I mean, who am I even supposed to read at this point? If they want to issue a warning, fine. If the moderator thinks I deserve it, then whatever.

To the rest of you who clearly have opinions on the alternativa scene but choose not to speak up—just move on. Honestly, I wish there were more intelligent people to talk to than the crowd claiming child vaccines are full of aborted fetuses, monkey blood, and heavy metals. I’d love to actually engage with people who could write a single coherent sentence explaining why they believe we're being sprayed from the sky. I’d love all sorts of things, but that's just not the reality right now.

And one last thing: if we're really scrutinizing this thread, please, let's ban all those ad hominem attacks that have nothing to do with the topics at hand. That includes my own comments too.

Ryan Gomez4 said:Look, nobody’s forcing you to read anything or post anything. It’s not like anyone’s going to stumble onto an FDA manual on pet care and decide all animals need to be wiped out, yet a huge crowd thinks it's perfectly fine to show up on the alternative sites just to mock everything being said.

I mean, that’s a pretty wild comparison to make, honestly. Like, when I ask why someone actually believes raw kale can cure them, you immediately jump to the idea that I'm going to go find a pet manual and call for animal extermination on another site. Who exactly is making fun of everyone? I haven't really noticed anyone on the alternative site just trolling. Most of us are just reacting to these... well, these really nonsensical treatises that get pulled out of context by people like Elizabeth Jackson and Jason Grant, and maybe the occasional other user. Because, I guess, most of the other people here—the ones I don't agree with—are actually pretty normal and know how to have a conversation.

I’d appreciate it if we didn't water down the point here.

briskbison55, maybe you should try actually responding to the thread starter, Elizabeth Jackson,—do you have even a single
constructive post in your fifty-plus entries on a topic like "raw food"?
And I mean a real contribution, without diving into the usual provocation, trolling, or just breaking the rules.

Let's also leave the petty personal squabbles out of this.

The evidence Elizabeth Jackson has provided is more than obvious, much like the attempts being made to dilute it and play it down.

Elizabeth Jackson said:...and the continuation...

Just to clarify, I’ve been an active participant in this thread for years now, and I have reported these kinds of inflammatory posts more times than I can count.
Carol Lopez23 didn't get banned. I don't think I've ever actually had a single post of mine reported. I mean, they didn't even bother to give a member like that a warning.
It seems I’m not the only one who has run into this; several other members on Reddit have shared the exact same experience.
If I recall correctly, the only person who ever actually stepped up to hand out a red card for such blatant rule-breaking was Ryan Gomez4.
There were plenty of instances where she didn't actually issue any formal warnings, but after enduring endless trolling, she did step in to caution the more problematic members. I can't help but wonder—wouldn't it be better if we could just get the discussion back to a civilized level?

Here are a few examples like that:
I suppose there’s a certain logic to how people approach this, though I find myself questioning if we’re even looking at the same map. It seems like everyone is trying to connect dots that might not actually be part of the same picture. Maybe I’m being too skeptical, or maybe I’m just seeing the gaps where others see solid lines. When you look at the way these theories circulate on platforms like Reddit, there's this sense of inevitable momentum. People grab onto a single thread and pull until the whole fabric unravels. It’s fascinating, in a way—this collective drive to find an underlying pattern behind everything. But I can't help but wonder if we aren't sometimes just projecting our own need for order onto what is essentially chaos. It’s easy to get swept up in the fervor, especially when the arguments feel so visceral. You see someone posting something that feels like a smoking gun, and suddenly, the entire consensus starts to shift. But I guess it’s worth pausing to ask: are we following the evidence, or are we just following the loudest voice in the room? I don't have all the answers, of course, but I do think we should be careful about how quickly we embrace a narrative just because it feels satisfyingly complete.
I’ve been thinking about this lately, and I honestly feel like we might be overlooking something pretty fundamental here. It seems to me that when people start throwing around these heavy-duty theories, there’s often a grain of truth buried under all the noise—even if the way it’s being presented feels a bit extreme. I was looking back at some of the points raised by Elizabeth Jackson, and while her perspective is certainly intense, it makes you wonder if we aren't just scratching the surface of what's actually happening. Maybe I’m overthinking it, but it feels like there’s a disconnect between what the mainstream media tells us and what a lot of people are seeing with their own eyes. It’s easy to dismiss these ideas as pure speculation, but if you look at the patterns, they don't always align perfectly with the official narrative. Then you have the arguments coming from briskbison55, which are even more provocative. It’s almost as if we're living in two different realities: one where everything is controlled and predictable, and another where things are much more chaotic and potentially manipulated. I guess it depends on how much you trust the institutions that are supposed to be keeping us safe and informed. Personally, I tend to lean toward a healthy dose of skepticism. It’s probably safer to assume that nothing is ever quite as simple as they want us to believe. Perhaps the real issue isn't whether these specific theories are true, but rather why they gain so much traction in the first place. When people feel unheard or misled by the powers that be, they naturally start looking for answers in places that others might call "fringe." It’s a bit of a cycle, really. The more the establishment pushes a single narrative, the more people will push back with something entirely different. I suppose we're all just trying to make sense of a world that feels increasingly unpredictable.
I honestly think we need to take a step back and look at this more objectively. It feels like we’re all getting caught up in the heat of the moment, but if you really sit down and parse through the arguments being made, there’s a significant amount of noise drowning out the actual substance. I guess what I’m trying to say is that we shouldn't be so quick to accept every claim as absolute truth without looking at the underlying data. Maybe I'm being too cautious, but I tend to feel that when everyone starts shouting at once, the nuance gets lost. It’s easy to fall into these echo chambers where we just validate each other's biases, rather than actually challenging them. I mean, if we want to get anywhere meaningful, we have to be willing to question even our own side. It’s a bit uncomfortable, sure, but isn't that the whole point of having these discussions? I was reading some stuff on Reddit the other day about similar debates happening over in Europe, and it struck me how universal this pattern is. People get passionate, emotions run high, and suddenly the logic becomes secondary to the feeling of being right. It’s a fascinating, if somewhat frustrating, human tendency. I suppose we could try to steer the conversation toward more empirical evidence, though I realize how difficult that can be once people have already dug their heels in. Just a thought.
I’ve been thinking about this conversation quite a bit lately, and I feel like we need to take a step back to look at the bigger picture. It seems like there's a fundamental misunderstanding of how these systems actually function, which leads people to jump to conclusions that don't quite hold up under scrutiny. When you look at the data—really dig into it rather than just skimming the headlines—you start to see the cracks in the mainstream narrative. I mean, I guess it’s easy to get swept up in the immediate reaction, but if we apply a bit of logic, the whole thing starts to look a little different. Maybe I'm being too cautious, but I tend to believe that things are rarely as simple as they are presented on the evening news. It’s interesting, really. You have one group of people insisting on a specific outcome, while another group, much like what we see discussed over on Reddit, is pointing out the inconsistencies. I find myself leaning toward the latter. There’s a certain level of skepticism required when dealing with large-scale institutions; otherwise, you risk missing the subtle shifts happening right under your nose. I’m not saying I have all the answers—far from it—but I do think we should be asking more pointed questions. If we aren't questioning the underlying assumptions, then we aren't really participating in a meaningful dialogue, are we? It feels like we're often just reacting to the symptoms rather than addressing the actual cause. Perhaps if we approached this with a bit more nuance, we wouldn't feel so polarized. Just a thought.
I’ve been sitting here thinking about this whole situation, and I honestly find myself wondering if we’re all just missing the forest for the trees. It feels like there’s this constant, heavy tension in our discussions lately, almost as if everyone is bracing for an impact that hasn't quite arrived yet. When you look at what people like Elizabeth Jackson are saying, or even follow the threads started by briskbison55, there seems to be this deep-seated suspicion regarding the information being fed to us through mainstream channels. I guess it’s understandable. In an era where trust in major institutions—whether it’s the federal government or big tech companies like Google—is at an all-time low, people naturally start looking for alternative explanations. Maybe that’s just how we’re wired now. I was reading some older arguments on Reddit recently, and it struck me how much of our discourse relies on whether or not we believe certain scientific consensus. If you lean toward the views shared by someone like Mercola, you start seeing patterns everywhere. You begin to question the very air we breathe or the food on our plates. It’s a rabbit hole, really. Once you start questioning the validity of standard medical advice or the motives behind large-scale environmental policies, it’s hard to go back to that simple, unquestioning way of living. Then you have the more intense theories floating around, like the ones concerning Chemtrails or the various agendas discussed by proponents of PROchemtrails. There’s a certain subset of the population that looks up at the sky and doesn't see weather patterns, but rather a coordinated effort of atmospheric manipulation. While I tend to approach these ideas with a fair amount of skepticism, I can't deny that the sheer scale of the anxiety they produce is real. It isn't just "nonsense," as some might dismissively call it; for many, it's a fundamental distrust of power itself. It’s a bit of a mess, isn't it? We’re caught between a desire for empirical, peer-reviewed certainty and a growing feeling that the "experts" might be hiding something significant. I don't have the answers, and I certainly don't want to claim I do. I think we just need to be careful about which voices we choose to amplify. Whether we're discussing politics in Washington, D.C., or debating the merits of raw food diets, the underlying issue remains the same: who do we actually trust when everything feels so uncertain?

I honestly can't help but wonder if we're all just missing something fundamental here. I was looking back at some of the discussions on Reddit, and it feels like there’s this massive gap between what people are actually experiencing and the official narrative being pushed. It’s almost like we’re living in two different realities. Maybe I’m being too cynical, but when you look at the sheer scale of what’s being discussed regarding things like Chemtrails ii, it seems wild to think that everyone is just collectively oblivious. I mean, I guess it’s possible that most people are just too busy with their own lives to notice, but for those of us who are paying attention, the patterns are becoming harder to ignore. It’s not even about wanting to find conspiracies; it’s more about trying to make sense of the data that's right in front of our eyes. I remember reading an argument from Elizabeth Jackson once where she pointed out how often these "outlier" observations get dismissed as mere coincidence. And while I agree that we have to be careful not to jump to conclusions without evidence, there comes a point where the coincidences start feeling a bit too choreographed, doesn't it? It's a delicate balance—trying to stay grounded in reality while acknowledging that reality might be much stranger than the news anchors would have us believe. I suppose the real question is: at what point does a series of anomalies stop being a fluke and start being a pattern? I don't have all the answers, of course, but I do think we need to keep asking the questions. Otherwise, we're just drifting along, accepting whatever version of the truth is handed to us.
I’ve been thinking quite a bit about the recent discussions regarding the intersection of scientific consensus and the various theories circulating online. It seems like we're constantly navigating this strange gray area where established academic institutions—the kind you'd find at Harvard or Stanford—clash with what people are seeing with their own eyes on platforms like YouTube. It’s an interesting tension, isn't it? On one hand, you have the official narrative provided by mainstream medical bodies, and on the other, you have voices like Mercola or even the controversial findings associated with Wakefield that continue to spark intense debate. I suppose it’s easy to feel like there's a massive disconnect between what the government tells us and the lived experiences of individuals who are looking deeper into things like Chemtrails or environmental shifts. Maybe I’m being too cautious, but I often find myself wondering if we're truly getting the full picture. There’s a certain level of skepticism that feels almost necessary nowadays. When you look at how information is filtered through major media conglomerates, it makes sense why people would turn to alternative perspectives to find what they consider the truth. It’s not necessarily about rejecting science, but perhaps about questioning who controls the lens through which we view it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the line between "fringe" and "fact" is much more porous than most people care to admit. It's a messy, complicated landscape, and I don't think there are any simple answers.

Unlike her, Carol Lopez23 seemed more interested in keeping the argument going.

Or perhaps he would only bother to react once someone with a different perspective finally posted something that didn't fit neatly into his established patterns of thought.

There were times when he even found himself siding with those who went out of their way to insult anyone with a different opinion:
I was looking back through some of the older discussions on Reddit, and I stumbled upon this particular thread. It’s interesting how certain topics just refuse to stay buried, isn't it? Looking at the points being made here, I feel like we need to take a step back and look at the broader implications. It’s easy to get caught up in the immediate back-and-forth, but if you really dig into the underlying logic—or lack thereof—there’s a much larger pattern emerging. I guess what I’m trying to say is that we shouldn't just take these claims at face value. There seems to be a significant amount of nuance being missed by most of the people jumping into the fray. Maybe I'm being too cautious, but I suspect there's more to the story than what's being presented on the surface. It feels like we're circling the same arguments without ever actually addressing the core issue. It's almost as if everyone is talking past one another rather than engaging with the actual substance of the debate. I find myself wondering if anyone is truly listening, or if we're all just waiting for our turn to speak. Regardless, it's worth keeping an eye on how this evolves.

It’s happened quite often that even some of our most regular and active contributors have stepped up to make it crystal clear: the situation surrounding this topic has officially spiraled completely out of control.

Here is how Carol Lopez23 reacted:
I’ve been following this thread for a while now, and I have to say, some of the arguments being thrown around here are truly mind-boggling. It feels like we’re drifting further and further away from any kind of grounded reality. I was reading through some of the points made by Elizabeth Jackson, and honestly, I find myself questioning how we even get to this point of discourse. It seems like there’s a massive disconnect between what people claim to know and the actual evidence available to us. Maybe I’m just being overly cynical, but it feels like a lot of these theories are built on incredibly shaky foundations. Then you look at the comments from briskbison55, and it’s almost like we're speaking different languages. There’s this tendency to jump to these wild conclusions without stopping to ask if there's a simpler explanation right in front of our eyes. I guess it’s easy to get swept up in a narrative when it feels like everything is connected, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. Even looking at what Carol Lopez23 mentioned—it really makes me wonder about the influence of certain echo chambers online. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to separate genuine inquiry from what feels like organized misinformation. I mean, I try to keep an open mind, I really do, but at some point, you have to draw a line between curiosity and pure speculation. It’s a strange time to be searching for truth, isn't it? It feels like every time you think you've found a solid footing, someone comes along and pulls the rug out from under you with a new, even more outlandish theory. I suppose we'll just have to see which way the wind blows.

KLEOPATRA is back at it again, making comments about how rules should be bent:

And also:

I’m Marec, and I’ve been a dedicated member here for quite some time, bringing years of actual, hands-on experience with this kind of diet to the table:

I am fairly certain—and I can say this with a high degree of confidence regarding many others as well—that these specific members have just walked away from this thread because of exactly this kind of moderation.

If the recent wave of trolling, insults, and off-topic nonsense has truly spiraled out of control and crossed every reasonable line, I suppose this recent incident serves as the perfect evidence. Ryan Gomez4's statement It’s pretty obvious she really gets what’s going on here. You can tell she’s fully aware of how this topic is constantly being shut down and obstructed. Honestly, you can almost feel her desperation—that sense of feeling completely powerless to actually change anything, like she's just reached her absolute limit with all of it.

After seeing that, I felt compelled to step in and offer my own take on the situation. Ideas for improving how this forum functions..
Carol Lopez23 used some pretty vulgar and uncivil language to make it crystal clear that they're essentially trying to strip away the rights of anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with them.

I am well aware of how things work around here on Reddit. I fully recognize that everyone has every right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe a moderator’s role isn't to act as a judge—it shouldn't be their job to decide from their own personal standpoint whether someone else's opinion is nonsense, foolishness, or just plain stupidity. Their actual responsibility is simply to moderate according to the established community guidelines.

The controversial posts I’ve listed here... In the meantime, I’ve been consistently filing reports over and over again.
Even though quite a few days have passed since these were originally posted—and even though I’ve personally reported them several times, along with many other users who I’m certain have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response. No sanctions, no warnings, no deleted posts... nothing at all. It honestly feels as if there isn't even a moderator on duty here.

However, there certainly was one present back when I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. Those photos featuring the sheep....

There was also that instance where Jason Grant was unfairly handed a red card. Just some fabricated trolling..

Given everything that’s been laid out and explained here, it seems pretty obvious that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and totally subjective, which flies right in the face of many of the standard rules we have here on Reddit.
Because of all this, I’m actually looking into requesting an exemption from the Carol Lopez23 moderator to see if we can finally get this discussion back to a civilized level. My hope is that by doing so, we might steer things toward a more productive path, allowing those who are just here to troll or push fringe theories to either move on or finally find their way back to the actual heart of the topic.

Thanks, and all the best!

Elizabeth Jackson

The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

Elizabeth Jackson said:...and the continuation...

Just to clarify, I’ve been an active participant in this thread for years now, and I have reported these kinds of inflammatory posts more times than I can count.
Carol Lopez23 didn't get banned. I don't think I've ever actually had a single post of mine reported. I mean, they didn't even bother to give a member like that a warning.
It seems I’m not the only one who has run into this; several other members on Reddit have shared the exact same experience.
If I recall correctly, the only person who ever actually stepped up to hand out a red card for such blatant rule-breaking was Ryan Gomez4.
There were plenty of instances where she didn't actually issue any formal warnings, but after enduring endless trolling, she did step in to caution the more problematic members. I can't help but wonder—wouldn't it be better if we could just get the discussion back to a civilized level?

Here are a few examples like that:
I suppose there’s a certain logic to how people approach this, though I find myself questioning if we’re even looking at the same map. It seems like everyone is trying to connect dots that might not actually be part of the same picture. Maybe I’m being too skeptical, or maybe I’m just seeing the gaps where others see solid lines. When you look at the way these theories circulate on platforms like Reddit, there's this sense of inevitable momentum. People grab onto a single thread and pull until the whole fabric unravels. It’s fascinating, in a way—this collective drive to find an underlying pattern behind everything. But I can't help but wonder if we aren't sometimes just projecting our own need for order onto what is essentially chaos. It’s easy to get swept up in the fervor, especially when the arguments feel so visceral. You see someone posting something that feels like a smoking gun, and suddenly, the entire consensus starts to shift. But I guess it’s worth pausing to ask: are we following the evidence, or are we just following the loudest voice in the room? I don't have all the answers, of course, but I do think we should be careful about how quickly we embrace a narrative just because it feels satisfyingly complete.
I’ve been thinking about this lately, and I honestly feel like we might be overlooking something pretty fundamental here. It seems to me that when people start throwing around these heavy-duty theories, there’s often a grain of truth buried under all the noise—even if the way it’s being presented feels a bit extreme. I was looking back at some of the points raised by Elizabeth Jackson, and while her perspective is certainly intense, it makes you wonder if we aren't just scratching the surface of what's actually happening. Maybe I’m overthinking it, but it feels like there’s a disconnect between what the mainstream media tells us and what a lot of people are seeing with their own eyes. It’s easy to dismiss these ideas as pure speculation, but if you look at the patterns, they don't always align perfectly with the official narrative. Then you have the arguments coming from briskbison55, which are even more provocative. It’s almost as if we're living in two different realities: one where everything is controlled and predictable, and another where things are much more chaotic and potentially manipulated. I guess it depends on how much you trust the institutions that are supposed to be keeping us safe and informed. Personally, I tend to lean toward a healthy dose of skepticism. It’s probably safer to assume that nothing is ever quite as simple as they want us to believe. Perhaps the real issue isn't whether these specific theories are true, but rather why they gain so much traction in the first place. When people feel unheard or misled by the powers that be, they naturally start looking for answers in places that others might call "fringe." It’s a bit of a cycle, really. The more the establishment pushes a single narrative, the more people will push back with something entirely different. I suppose we're all just trying to make sense of a world that feels increasingly unpredictable.
I honestly think we need to take a step back and look at this more objectively. It feels like we’re all getting caught up in the heat of the moment, but if you really sit down and parse through the arguments being made, there’s a significant amount of noise drowning out the actual substance. I guess what I’m trying to say is that we shouldn't be so quick to accept every claim as absolute truth without looking at the underlying data. Maybe I'm being too cautious, but I tend to feel that when everyone starts shouting at once, the nuance gets lost. It’s easy to fall into these echo chambers where we just validate each other's biases, rather than actually challenging them. I mean, if we want to get anywhere meaningful, we have to be willing to question even our own side. It’s a bit uncomfortable, sure, but isn't that the whole point of having these discussions? I was reading some stuff on Reddit the other day about similar debates happening over in Europe, and it struck me how universal this pattern is. People get passionate, emotions run high, and suddenly the logic becomes secondary to the feeling of being right. It’s a fascinating, if somewhat frustrating, human tendency. I suppose we could try to steer the conversation toward more empirical evidence, though I realize how difficult that can be once people have already dug their heels in. Just a thought.
I’ve been thinking about this conversation quite a bit lately, and I feel like we need to take a step back to look at the bigger picture. It seems like there's a fundamental misunderstanding of how these systems actually function, which leads people to jump to conclusions that don't quite hold up under scrutiny. When you look at the data—really dig into it rather than just skimming the headlines—you start to see the cracks in the mainstream narrative. I mean, I guess it’s easy to get swept up in the immediate reaction, but if we apply a bit of logic, the whole thing starts to look a little different. Maybe I'm being too cautious, but I tend to believe that things are rarely as simple as they are presented on the evening news. It’s interesting, really. You have one group of people insisting on a specific outcome, while another group, much like what we see discussed over on Reddit, is pointing out the inconsistencies. I find myself leaning toward the latter. There’s a certain level of skepticism required when dealing with large-scale institutions; otherwise, you risk missing the subtle shifts happening right under your nose. I’m not saying I have all the answers—far from it—but I do think we should be asking more pointed questions. If we aren't questioning the underlying assumptions, then we aren't really participating in a meaningful dialogue, are we? It feels like we're often just reacting to the symptoms rather than addressing the actual cause. Perhaps if we approached this with a bit more nuance, we wouldn't feel so polarized. Just a thought.
I’ve been sitting here thinking about this whole situation, and I honestly find myself wondering if we’re all just missing the forest for the trees. It feels like there’s this constant, heavy tension in our discussions lately, almost as if everyone is bracing for an impact that hasn't quite arrived yet. When you look at what people like Elizabeth Jackson are saying, or even follow the threads started by briskbison55, there seems to be this deep-seated suspicion regarding the information being fed to us through mainstream channels. I guess it’s understandable. In an era where trust in major institutions—whether it’s the federal government or big tech companies like Google—is at an all-time low, people naturally start looking for alternative explanations. Maybe that’s just how we’re wired now. I was reading some older arguments on Reddit recently, and it struck me how much of our discourse relies on whether or not we believe certain scientific consensus. If you lean toward the views shared by someone like Mercola, you start seeing patterns everywhere. You begin to question the very air we breathe or the food on our plates. It’s a rabbit hole, really. Once you start questioning the validity of standard medical advice or the motives behind large-scale environmental policies, it’s hard to go back to that simple, unquestioning way of living. Then you have the more intense theories floating around, like the ones concerning Chemtrails or the various agendas discussed by proponents of PROchemtrails. There’s a certain subset of the population that looks up at the sky and doesn't see weather patterns, but rather a coordinated effort of atmospheric manipulation. While I tend to approach these ideas with a fair amount of skepticism, I can't deny that the sheer scale of the anxiety they produce is real. It isn't just "nonsense," as some might dismissively call it; for many, it's a fundamental distrust of power itself. It’s a bit of a mess, isn't it? We’re caught between a desire for empirical, peer-reviewed certainty and a growing feeling that the "experts" might be hiding something significant. I don't have the answers, and I certainly don't want to claim I do. I think we just need to be careful about which voices we choose to amplify. Whether we're discussing politics in Washington, D.C., or debating the merits of raw food diets, the underlying issue remains the same: who do we actually trust when everything feels so uncertain?

I honestly can't help but wonder if we're all just missing something fundamental here. I was looking back at some of the discussions on Reddit, and it feels like there’s this massive gap between what people are actually experiencing and the official narrative being pushed. It’s almost like we’re living in two different realities. Maybe I’m being too cynical, but when you look at the sheer scale of what’s being discussed regarding things like Chemtrails ii, it seems wild to think that everyone is just collectively oblivious. I mean, I guess it’s possible that most people are just too busy with their own lives to notice, but for those of us who are paying attention, the patterns are becoming harder to ignore. It’s not even about wanting to find conspiracies; it’s more about trying to make sense of the data that's right in front of our eyes. I remember reading an argument from Elizabeth Jackson once where she pointed out how often these "outlier" observations get dismissed as mere coincidence. And while I agree that we have to be careful not to jump to conclusions without evidence, there comes a point where the coincidences start feeling a bit too choreographed, doesn't it? It's a delicate balance—trying to stay grounded in reality while acknowledging that reality might be much stranger than the news anchors would have us believe. I suppose the real question is: at what point does a series of anomalies stop being a fluke and start being a pattern? I don't have all the answers, of course, but I do think we need to keep asking the questions. Otherwise, we're just drifting along, accepting whatever version of the truth is handed to us.
I’ve been thinking quite a bit about the recent discussions regarding the intersection of scientific consensus and the various theories circulating online. It seems like we're constantly navigating this strange gray area where established academic institutions—the kind you'd find at Harvard or Stanford—clash with what people are seeing with their own eyes on platforms like YouTube. It’s an interesting tension, isn't it? On one hand, you have the official narrative provided by mainstream medical bodies, and on the other, you have voices like Mercola or even the controversial findings associated with Wakefield that continue to spark intense debate. I suppose it’s easy to feel like there's a massive disconnect between what the government tells us and the lived experiences of individuals who are looking deeper into things like Chemtrails or environmental shifts. Maybe I’m being too cautious, but I often find myself wondering if we're truly getting the full picture. There’s a certain level of skepticism that feels almost necessary nowadays. When you look at how information is filtered through major media conglomerates, it makes sense why people would turn to alternative perspectives to find what they consider the truth. It’s not necessarily about rejecting science, but perhaps about questioning who controls the lens through which we view it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the line between "fringe" and "fact" is much more porous than most people care to admit. It's a messy, complicated landscape, and I don't think there are any simple answers.

Unlike her, Carol Lopez23 seemed more interested in keeping the argument going.

Or perhaps he would only bother to react once someone with a different perspective finally posted something that didn't fit neatly into his established patterns of thought.

There were times when he even found himself siding with those who went out of their way to insult anyone with a different opinion:
I was looking back through some of the older discussions on Reddit, and I stumbled upon this particular thread. It’s interesting how certain topics just refuse to stay buried, isn't it? Looking at the points being made here, I feel like we need to take a step back and look at the broader implications. It’s easy to get caught up in the immediate back-and-forth, but if you really dig into the underlying logic—or lack thereof—there’s a much larger pattern emerging. I guess what I’m trying to say is that we shouldn't just take these claims at face value. There seems to be a significant amount of nuance being missed by most of the people jumping into the fray. Maybe I'm being too cautious, but I suspect there's more to the story than what's being presented on the surface. It feels like we're circling the same arguments without ever actually addressing the core issue. It's almost as if everyone is talking past one another rather than engaging with the actual substance of the debate. I find myself wondering if anyone is truly listening, or if we're all just waiting for our turn to speak. Regardless, it's worth keeping an eye on how this evolves.

It’s happened quite often that even some of our most regular and active contributors have stepped up to make it crystal clear: the situation surrounding this topic has officially spiraled completely out of control.

Here is how Carol Lopez23 reacted:
I’ve been following this thread for a while now, and I have to say, some of the arguments being thrown around here are truly mind-boggling. It feels like we’re drifting further and further away from any kind of grounded reality. I was reading through some of the points made by Elizabeth Jackson, and honestly, I find myself questioning how we even get to this point of discourse. It seems like there’s a massive disconnect between what people claim to know and the actual evidence available to us. Maybe I’m just being overly cynical, but it feels like a lot of these theories are built on incredibly shaky foundations. Then you look at the comments from briskbison55, and it’s almost like we're speaking different languages. There’s this tendency to jump to these wild conclusions without stopping to ask if there's a simpler explanation right in front of our eyes. I guess it’s easy to get swept up in a narrative when it feels like everything is connected, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. Even looking at what Carol Lopez23 mentioned—it really makes me wonder about the influence of certain echo chambers online. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to separate genuine inquiry from what feels like organized misinformation. I mean, I try to keep an open mind, I really do, but at some point, you have to draw a line between curiosity and pure speculation. It’s a strange time to be searching for truth, isn't it? It feels like every time you think you've found a solid footing, someone comes along and pulls the rug out from under you with a new, even more outlandish theory. I suppose we'll just have to see which way the wind blows.

KLEOPATRA is back at it again, making comments about how rules should be bent:

And also:

I’m Marec, and I’ve been a dedicated member here for quite some time, bringing years of actual, hands-on experience with this kind of diet to the table:

I am fairly certain—and I can say this with a high degree of confidence regarding many others as well—that these specific members have just walked away from this thread because of exactly this kind of moderation.

If the recent wave of trolling, insults, and off-topic nonsense has truly spiraled out of control and crossed every reasonable line, I suppose this recent incident serves as the perfect evidence. Ryan Gomez4's statement It’s pretty obvious she really gets what’s going on here. You can tell she’s fully aware of how this topic is constantly being shut down and obstructed. Honestly, you can almost feel her desperation—that sense of feeling completely powerless to actually change anything, like she's just reached her absolute limit with all of it.

After seeing that, I felt compelled to step in and offer my own take on the situation. Ideas for improving how this forum functions..
Carol Lopez23 used some pretty vulgar and uncivil language to make it crystal clear that they're essentially trying to strip away the rights of anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with them.

I am well aware of how things work around here on Reddit. I fully recognize that everyone has every right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe a moderator’s role isn't to act as a judge—it shouldn't be their job to decide from their own personal standpoint whether someone else's opinion is nonsense, foolishness, or just plain stupidity. Their actual responsibility is simply to moderate according to the established community guidelines.

The controversial posts I’ve listed here... In the meantime, I’ve been consistently filing reports over and over again.
Even though quite a few days have passed since these were originally posted—and even though I’ve personally reported them several times, along with many other users who I’m certain have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response. No sanctions, no warnings, no deleted posts... nothing at all. It honestly feels as if there isn't even a moderator on duty here.

However, there certainly was one present back when I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. Those photos featuring the sheep....

There was also that instance where Jason Grant was unfairly handed a red card. Just some fabricated trolling..

Given everything that’s been laid out and explained here, it seems pretty obvious that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and totally subjective, which flies right in the face of many of the standard rules we have here on Reddit.
Because of all this, I’m actually looking into requesting an exemption from the Carol Lopez23 moderator to see if we can finally get this discussion back to a civilized level. My hope is that by doing so, we might steer things toward a more productive path, allowing those who are just here to troll or push fringe theories to either move on or finally find their way back to the actual heart of the topic.

Thanks, and all the best!

Elizabeth Jackson

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Elizabeth Jackson said:...and the continuation...

Just to clarify, I’ve been an active participant in this thread for years now, and I have reported these kinds of inflammatory posts more times than I can count.
Carol Lopez23 didn't get banned. I don't think I've ever actually had a single post of mine reported. I mean, they didn't even bother to give a member like that a warning.
It seems I’m not the only one who has run into this; several other members on Reddit have shared the exact same experience.
If I recall correctly, the only person who ever actually stepped up to hand out a red card for such blatant rule-breaking was Ryan Gomez4.
There were plenty of instances where she didn't actually issue any formal warnings, but after enduring endless trolling, she did step in to caution the more problematic members. I can't help but wonder—wouldn't it be better if we could just get the discussion back to a civilized level?

Here are a few examples like that:
I suppose there’s a certain logic to how people approach this, though I find myself questioning if we’re even looking at the same map. It seems like everyone is trying to connect dots that might not actually be part of the same picture. Maybe I’m being too skeptical, or maybe I’m just seeing the gaps where others see solid lines. When you look at the way these theories circulate on platforms like Reddit, there's this sense of inevitable momentum. People grab onto a single thread and pull until the whole fabric unravels. It’s fascinating, in a way—this collective drive to find an underlying pattern behind everything. But I can't help but wonder if we aren't sometimes just projecting our own need for order onto what is essentially chaos. It’s easy to get swept up in the fervor, especially when the arguments feel so visceral. You see someone posting something that feels like a smoking gun, and suddenly, the entire consensus starts to shift. But I guess it’s worth pausing to ask: are we following the evidence, or are we just following the loudest voice in the room? I don't have all the answers, of course, but I do think we should be careful about how quickly we embrace a narrative just because it feels satisfyingly complete.
I’ve been thinking about this lately, and I honestly feel like we might be overlooking something pretty fundamental here. It seems to me that when people start throwing around these heavy-duty theories, there’s often a grain of truth buried under all the noise—even if the way it’s being presented feels a bit extreme. I was looking back at some of the points raised by Elizabeth Jackson, and while her perspective is certainly intense, it makes you wonder if we aren't just scratching the surface of what's actually happening. Maybe I’m overthinking it, but it feels like there’s a disconnect between what the mainstream media tells us and what a lot of people are seeing with their own eyes. It’s easy to dismiss these ideas as pure speculation, but if you look at the patterns, they don't always align perfectly with the official narrative. Then you have the arguments coming from briskbison55, which are even more provocative. It’s almost as if we're living in two different realities: one where everything is controlled and predictable, and another where things are much more chaotic and potentially manipulated. I guess it depends on how much you trust the institutions that are supposed to be keeping us safe and informed. Personally, I tend to lean toward a healthy dose of skepticism. It’s probably safer to assume that nothing is ever quite as simple as they want us to believe. Perhaps the real issue isn't whether these specific theories are true, but rather why they gain so much traction in the first place. When people feel unheard or misled by the powers that be, they naturally start looking for answers in places that others might call "fringe." It’s a bit of a cycle, really. The more the establishment pushes a single narrative, the more people will push back with something entirely different. I suppose we're all just trying to make sense of a world that feels increasingly unpredictable.
I honestly think we need to take a step back and look at this more objectively. It feels like we’re all getting caught up in the heat of the moment, but if you really sit down and parse through the arguments being made, there’s a significant amount of noise drowning out the actual substance. I guess what I’m trying to say is that we shouldn't be so quick to accept every claim as absolute truth without looking at the underlying data. Maybe I'm being too cautious, but I tend to feel that when everyone starts shouting at once, the nuance gets lost. It’s easy to fall into these echo chambers where we just validate each other's biases, rather than actually challenging them. I mean, if we want to get anywhere meaningful, we have to be willing to question even our own side. It’s a bit uncomfortable, sure, but isn't that the whole point of having these discussions? I was reading some stuff on Reddit the other day about similar debates happening over in Europe, and it struck me how universal this pattern is. People get passionate, emotions run high, and suddenly the logic becomes secondary to the feeling of being right. It’s a fascinating, if somewhat frustrating, human tendency. I suppose we could try to steer the conversation toward more empirical evidence, though I realize how difficult that can be once people have already dug their heels in. Just a thought.
I’ve been thinking about this conversation quite a bit lately, and I feel like we need to take a step back to look at the bigger picture. It seems like there's a fundamental misunderstanding of how these systems actually function, which leads people to jump to conclusions that don't quite hold up under scrutiny. When you look at the data—really dig into it rather than just skimming the headlines—you start to see the cracks in the mainstream narrative. I mean, I guess it’s easy to get swept up in the immediate reaction, but if we apply a bit of logic, the whole thing starts to look a little different. Maybe I'm being too cautious, but I tend to believe that things are rarely as simple as they are presented on the evening news. It’s interesting, really. You have one group of people insisting on a specific outcome, while another group, much like what we see discussed over on Reddit, is pointing out the inconsistencies. I find myself leaning toward the latter. There’s a certain level of skepticism required when dealing with large-scale institutions; otherwise, you risk missing the subtle shifts happening right under your nose. I’m not saying I have all the answers—far from it—but I do think we should be asking more pointed questions. If we aren't questioning the underlying assumptions, then we aren't really participating in a meaningful dialogue, are we? It feels like we're often just reacting to the symptoms rather than addressing the actual cause. Perhaps if we approached this with a bit more nuance, we wouldn't feel so polarized. Just a thought.
I’ve been sitting here thinking about this whole situation, and I honestly find myself wondering if we’re all just missing the forest for the trees. It feels like there’s this constant, heavy tension in our discussions lately, almost as if everyone is bracing for an impact that hasn't quite arrived yet. When you look at what people like Elizabeth Jackson are saying, or even follow the threads started by briskbison55, there seems to be this deep-seated suspicion regarding the information being fed to us through mainstream channels. I guess it’s understandable. In an era where trust in major institutions—whether it’s the federal government or big tech companies like Google—is at an all-time low, people naturally start looking for alternative explanations. Maybe that’s just how we’re wired now. I was reading some older arguments on Reddit recently, and it struck me how much of our discourse relies on whether or not we believe certain scientific consensus. If you lean toward the views shared by someone like Mercola, you start seeing patterns everywhere. You begin to question the very air we breathe or the food on our plates. It’s a rabbit hole, really. Once you start questioning the validity of standard medical advice or the motives behind large-scale environmental policies, it’s hard to go back to that simple, unquestioning way of living. Then you have the more intense theories floating around, like the ones concerning Chemtrails or the various agendas discussed by proponents of PROchemtrails. There’s a certain subset of the population that looks up at the sky and doesn't see weather patterns, but rather a coordinated effort of atmospheric manipulation. While I tend to approach these ideas with a fair amount of skepticism, I can't deny that the sheer scale of the anxiety they produce is real. It isn't just "nonsense," as some might dismissively call it; for many, it's a fundamental distrust of power itself. It’s a bit of a mess, isn't it? We’re caught between a desire for empirical, peer-reviewed certainty and a growing feeling that the "experts" might be hiding something significant. I don't have the answers, and I certainly don't want to claim I do. I think we just need to be careful about which voices we choose to amplify. Whether we're discussing politics in Washington, D.C., or debating the merits of raw food diets, the underlying issue remains the same: who do we actually trust when everything feels so uncertain?

I honestly can't help but wonder if we're all just missing something fundamental here. I was looking back at some of the discussions on Reddit, and it feels like there’s this massive gap between what people are actually experiencing and the official narrative being pushed. It’s almost like we’re living in two different realities. Maybe I’m being too cynical, but when you look at the sheer scale of what’s being discussed regarding things like Chemtrails ii, it seems wild to think that everyone is just collectively oblivious. I mean, I guess it’s possible that most people are just too busy with their own lives to notice, but for those of us who are paying attention, the patterns are becoming harder to ignore. It’s not even about wanting to find conspiracies; it’s more about trying to make sense of the data that's right in front of our eyes. I remember reading an argument from Elizabeth Jackson once where she pointed out how often these "outlier" observations get dismissed as mere coincidence. And while I agree that we have to be careful not to jump to conclusions without evidence, there comes a point where the coincidences start feeling a bit too choreographed, doesn't it? It's a delicate balance—trying to stay grounded in reality while acknowledging that reality might be much stranger than the news anchors would have us believe. I suppose the real question is: at what point does a series of anomalies stop being a fluke and start being a pattern? I don't have all the answers, of course, but I do think we need to keep asking the questions. Otherwise, we're just drifting along, accepting whatever version of the truth is handed to us.
I’ve been thinking quite a bit about the recent discussions regarding the intersection of scientific consensus and the various theories circulating online. It seems like we're constantly navigating this strange gray area where established academic institutions—the kind you'd find at Harvard or Stanford—clash with what people are seeing with their own eyes on platforms like YouTube. It’s an interesting tension, isn't it? On one hand, you have the official narrative provided by mainstream medical bodies, and on the other, you have voices like Mercola or even the controversial findings associated with Wakefield that continue to spark intense debate. I suppose it’s easy to feel like there's a massive disconnect between what the government tells us and the lived experiences of individuals who are looking deeper into things like Chemtrails or environmental shifts. Maybe I’m being too cautious, but I often find myself wondering if we're truly getting the full picture. There’s a certain level of skepticism that feels almost necessary nowadays. When you look at how information is filtered through major media conglomerates, it makes sense why people would turn to alternative perspectives to find what they consider the truth. It’s not necessarily about rejecting science, but perhaps about questioning who controls the lens through which we view it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the line between "fringe" and "fact" is much more porous than most people care to admit. It's a messy, complicated landscape, and I don't think there are any simple answers.

Unlike her, Carol Lopez23 seemed more interested in keeping the argument going.

Or perhaps he would only bother to react once someone with a different perspective finally posted something that didn't fit neatly into his established patterns of thought.

There were times when he even found himself siding with those who went out of their way to insult anyone with a different opinion:
I was looking back through some of the older discussions on Reddit, and I stumbled upon this particular thread. It’s interesting how certain topics just refuse to stay buried, isn't it? Looking at the points being made here, I feel like we need to take a step back and look at the broader implications. It’s easy to get caught up in the immediate back-and-forth, but if you really dig into the underlying logic—or lack thereof—there’s a much larger pattern emerging. I guess what I’m trying to say is that we shouldn't just take these claims at face value. There seems to be a significant amount of nuance being missed by most of the people jumping into the fray. Maybe I'm being too cautious, but I suspect there's more to the story than what's being presented on the surface. It feels like we're circling the same arguments without ever actually addressing the core issue. It's almost as if everyone is talking past one another rather than engaging with the actual substance of the debate. I find myself wondering if anyone is truly listening, or if we're all just waiting for our turn to speak. Regardless, it's worth keeping an eye on how this evolves.

It’s happened quite often that even some of our most regular and active contributors have stepped up to make it crystal clear: the situation surrounding this topic has officially spiraled completely out of control.

Here is how Carol Lopez23 reacted:
I’ve been following this thread for a while now, and I have to say, some of the arguments being thrown around here are truly mind-boggling. It feels like we’re drifting further and further away from any kind of grounded reality. I was reading through some of the points made by Elizabeth Jackson, and honestly, I find myself questioning how we even get to this point of discourse. It seems like there’s a massive disconnect between what people claim to know and the actual evidence available to us. Maybe I’m just being overly cynical, but it feels like a lot of these theories are built on incredibly shaky foundations. Then you look at the comments from briskbison55, and it’s almost like we're speaking different languages. There’s this tendency to jump to these wild conclusions without stopping to ask if there's a simpler explanation right in front of our eyes. I guess it’s easy to get swept up in a narrative when it feels like everything is connected, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. Even looking at what Carol Lopez23 mentioned—it really makes me wonder about the influence of certain echo chambers online. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to separate genuine inquiry from what feels like organized misinformation. I mean, I try to keep an open mind, I really do, but at some point, you have to draw a line between curiosity and pure speculation. It’s a strange time to be searching for truth, isn't it? It feels like every time you think you've found a solid footing, someone comes along and pulls the rug out from under you with a new, even more outlandish theory. I suppose we'll just have to see which way the wind blows.

KLEOPATRA is back at it again, making comments about how rules should be bent:

And also:

I’m Marec, and I’ve been a dedicated member here for quite some time, bringing years of actual, hands-on experience with this kind of diet to the table:

I am fairly certain—and I can say this with a high degree of confidence regarding many others as well—that these specific members have just walked away from this thread because of exactly this kind of moderation.

If the recent wave of trolling, insults, and off-topic nonsense has truly spiraled out of control and crossed every reasonable line, I suppose this recent incident serves as the perfect evidence. Ryan Gomez4's statement It’s pretty obvious she really gets what’s going on here. You can tell she’s fully aware of how this topic is constantly being shut down and obstructed. Honestly, you can almost feel her desperation—that sense of feeling completely powerless to actually change anything, like she's just reached her absolute limit with all of it.

After seeing that, I felt compelled to step in and offer my own take on the situation. Ideas for improving how this forum functions..
Carol Lopez23 used some pretty vulgar and uncivil language to make it crystal clear that they're essentially trying to strip away the rights of anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with them.

I am well aware of how things work around here on Reddit. I fully recognize that everyone has every right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe a moderator’s role isn't to act as a judge—it shouldn't be their job to decide from their own personal standpoint whether someone else's opinion is nonsense, foolishness, or just plain stupidity. Their actual responsibility is simply to moderate according to the established community guidelines.

The controversial posts I’ve listed here... In the meantime, I’ve been consistently filing reports over and over again.
Even though quite a few days have passed since these were originally posted—and even though I’ve personally reported them several times, along with many other users who I’m certain have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response. No sanctions, no warnings, no deleted posts... nothing at all. It honestly feels as if there isn't even a moderator on duty here.

However, there certainly was one present back when I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. Those photos featuring the sheep....

There was also that instance where Jason Grant was unfairly handed a red card. Just some fabricated trolling..

Given everything that’s been laid out and explained here, it seems pretty obvious that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and totally subjective, which flies right in the face of many of the standard rules we have here on Reddit.
Because of all this, I’m actually looking into requesting an exemption from the Carol Lopez23 moderator to see if we can finally get this discussion back to a civilized level. My hope is that by doing so, we might steer things toward a more productive path, allowing those who are just here to troll or push fringe theories to either move on or finally find their way back to the actual heart of the topic.

Thanks, and all the best!

Elizabeth Jackson

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Elizabeth Jackson said:...and the continuation...

Just to clarify, I’ve been an active participant in this thread for years now, and I have reported these kinds of inflammatory posts more times than I can count.
Carol Lopez23 didn't get banned. I don't think I've ever actually had a single post of mine reported. I mean, they didn't even bother to give a member like that a warning.
It seems I’m not the only one who has run into this; several other members on Reddit have shared the exact same experience.
If I recall correctly, the only person who ever actually stepped up to hand out a red card for such blatant rule-breaking was Ryan Gomez4.
There were plenty of instances where she didn't actually issue any formal warnings, but after enduring endless trolling, she did step in to caution the more problematic members. I can't help but wonder—wouldn't it be better if we could just get the discussion back to a civilized level?

Here are a few examples like that:
I suppose there’s a certain logic to how people approach this, though I find myself questioning if we’re even looking at the same map. It seems like everyone is trying to connect dots that might not actually be part of the same picture. Maybe I’m being too skeptical, or maybe I’m just seeing the gaps where others see solid lines. When you look at the way these theories circulate on platforms like Reddit, there's this sense of inevitable momentum. People grab onto a single thread and pull until the whole fabric unravels. It’s fascinating, in a way—this collective drive to find an underlying pattern behind everything. But I can't help but wonder if we aren't sometimes just projecting our own need for order onto what is essentially chaos. It’s easy to get swept up in the fervor, especially when the arguments feel so visceral. You see someone posting something that feels like a smoking gun, and suddenly, the entire consensus starts to shift. But I guess it’s worth pausing to ask: are we following the evidence, or are we just following the loudest voice in the room? I don't have all the answers, of course, but I do think we should be careful about how quickly we embrace a narrative just because it feels satisfyingly complete.
I’ve been thinking about this lately, and I honestly feel like we might be overlooking something pretty fundamental here. It seems to me that when people start throwing around these heavy-duty theories, there’s often a grain of truth buried under all the noise—even if the way it’s being presented feels a bit extreme. I was looking back at some of the points raised by Elizabeth Jackson, and while her perspective is certainly intense, it makes you wonder if we aren't just scratching the surface of what's actually happening. Maybe I’m overthinking it, but it feels like there’s a disconnect between what the mainstream media tells us and what a lot of people are seeing with their own eyes. It’s easy to dismiss these ideas as pure speculation, but if you look at the patterns, they don't always align perfectly with the official narrative. Then you have the arguments coming from briskbison55, which are even more provocative. It’s almost as if we're living in two different realities: one where everything is controlled and predictable, and another where things are much more chaotic and potentially manipulated. I guess it depends on how much you trust the institutions that are supposed to be keeping us safe and informed. Personally, I tend to lean toward a healthy dose of skepticism. It’s probably safer to assume that nothing is ever quite as simple as they want us to believe. Perhaps the real issue isn't whether these specific theories are true, but rather why they gain so much traction in the first place. When people feel unheard or misled by the powers that be, they naturally start looking for answers in places that others might call "fringe." It’s a bit of a cycle, really. The more the establishment pushes a single narrative, the more people will push back with something entirely different. I suppose we're all just trying to make sense of a world that feels increasingly unpredictable.
I honestly think we need to take a step back and look at this more objectively. It feels like we’re all getting caught up in the heat of the moment, but if you really sit down and parse through the arguments being made, there’s a significant amount of noise drowning out the actual substance. I guess what I’m trying to say is that we shouldn't be so quick to accept every claim as absolute truth without looking at the underlying data. Maybe I'm being too cautious, but I tend to feel that when everyone starts shouting at once, the nuance gets lost. It’s easy to fall into these echo chambers where we just validate each other's biases, rather than actually challenging them. I mean, if we want to get anywhere meaningful, we have to be willing to question even our own side. It’s a bit uncomfortable, sure, but isn't that the whole point of having these discussions? I was reading some stuff on Reddit the other day about similar debates happening over in Europe, and it struck me how universal this pattern is. People get passionate, emotions run high, and suddenly the logic becomes secondary to the feeling of being right. It’s a fascinating, if somewhat frustrating, human tendency. I suppose we could try to steer the conversation toward more empirical evidence, though I realize how difficult that can be once people have already dug their heels in. Just a thought.
I’ve been thinking about this conversation quite a bit lately, and I feel like we need to take a step back to look at the bigger picture. It seems like there's a fundamental misunderstanding of how these systems actually function, which leads people to jump to conclusions that don't quite hold up under scrutiny. When you look at the data—really dig into it rather than just skimming the headlines—you start to see the cracks in the mainstream narrative. I mean, I guess it’s easy to get swept up in the immediate reaction, but if we apply a bit of logic, the whole thing starts to look a little different. Maybe I'm being too cautious, but I tend to believe that things are rarely as simple as they are presented on the evening news. It’s interesting, really. You have one group of people insisting on a specific outcome, while another group, much like what we see discussed over on Reddit, is pointing out the inconsistencies. I find myself leaning toward the latter. There’s a certain level of skepticism required when dealing with large-scale institutions; otherwise, you risk missing the subtle shifts happening right under your nose. I’m not saying I have all the answers—far from it—but I do think we should be asking more pointed questions. If we aren't questioning the underlying assumptions, then we aren't really participating in a meaningful dialogue, are we? It feels like we're often just reacting to the symptoms rather than addressing the actual cause. Perhaps if we approached this with a bit more nuance, we wouldn't feel so polarized. Just a thought.
I’ve been sitting here thinking about this whole situation, and I honestly find myself wondering if we’re all just missing the forest for the trees. It feels like there’s this constant, heavy tension in our discussions lately, almost as if everyone is bracing for an impact that hasn't quite arrived yet. When you look at what people like Elizabeth Jackson are saying, or even follow the threads started by briskbison55, there seems to be this deep-seated suspicion regarding the information being fed to us through mainstream channels. I guess it’s understandable. In an era where trust in major institutions—whether it’s the federal government or big tech companies like Google—is at an all-time low, people naturally start looking for alternative explanations. Maybe that’s just how we’re wired now. I was reading some older arguments on Reddit recently, and it struck me how much of our discourse relies on whether or not we believe certain scientific consensus. If you lean toward the views shared by someone like Mercola, you start seeing patterns everywhere. You begin to question the very air we breathe or the food on our plates. It’s a rabbit hole, really. Once you start questioning the validity of standard medical advice or the motives behind large-scale environmental policies, it’s hard to go back to that simple, unquestioning way of living. Then you have the more intense theories floating around, like the ones concerning Chemtrails or the various agendas discussed by proponents of PROchemtrails. There’s a certain subset of the population that looks up at the sky and doesn't see weather patterns, but rather a coordinated effort of atmospheric manipulation. While I tend to approach these ideas with a fair amount of skepticism, I can't deny that the sheer scale of the anxiety they produce is real. It isn't just "nonsense," as some might dismissively call it; for many, it's a fundamental distrust of power itself. It’s a bit of a mess, isn't it? We’re caught between a desire for empirical, peer-reviewed certainty and a growing feeling that the "experts" might be hiding something significant. I don't have the answers, and I certainly don't want to claim I do. I think we just need to be careful about which voices we choose to amplify. Whether we're discussing politics in Washington, D.C., or debating the merits of raw food diets, the underlying issue remains the same: who do we actually trust when everything feels so uncertain?

I honestly can't help but wonder if we're all just missing something fundamental here. I was looking back at some of the discussions on Reddit, and it feels like there’s this massive gap between what people are actually experiencing and the official narrative being pushed. It’s almost like we’re living in two different realities. Maybe I’m being too cynical, but when you look at the sheer scale of what’s being discussed regarding things like Chemtrails ii, it seems wild to think that everyone is just collectively oblivious. I mean, I guess it’s possible that most people are just too busy with their own lives to notice, but for those of us who are paying attention, the patterns are becoming harder to ignore. It’s not even about wanting to find conspiracies; it’s more about trying to make sense of the data that's right in front of our eyes. I remember reading an argument from Elizabeth Jackson once where she pointed out how often these "outlier" observations get dismissed as mere coincidence. And while I agree that we have to be careful not to jump to conclusions without evidence, there comes a point where the coincidences start feeling a bit too choreographed, doesn't it? It's a delicate balance—trying to stay grounded in reality while acknowledging that reality might be much stranger than the news anchors would have us believe. I suppose the real question is: at what point does a series of anomalies stop being a fluke and start being a pattern? I don't have all the answers, of course, but I do think we need to keep asking the questions. Otherwise, we're just drifting along, accepting whatever version of the truth is handed to us.
I’ve been thinking quite a bit about the recent discussions regarding the intersection of scientific consensus and the various theories circulating online. It seems like we're constantly navigating this strange gray area where established academic institutions—the kind you'd find at Harvard or Stanford—clash with what people are seeing with their own eyes on platforms like YouTube. It’s an interesting tension, isn't it? On one hand, you have the official narrative provided by mainstream medical bodies, and on the other, you have voices like Mercola or even the controversial findings associated with Wakefield that continue to spark intense debate. I suppose it’s easy to feel like there's a massive disconnect between what the government tells us and the lived experiences of individuals who are looking deeper into things like Chemtrails or environmental shifts. Maybe I’m being too cautious, but I often find myself wondering if we're truly getting the full picture. There’s a certain level of skepticism that feels almost necessary nowadays. When you look at how information is filtered through major media conglomerates, it makes sense why people would turn to alternative perspectives to find what they consider the truth. It’s not necessarily about rejecting science, but perhaps about questioning who controls the lens through which we view it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the line between "fringe" and "fact" is much more porous than most people care to admit. It's a messy, complicated landscape, and I don't think there are any simple answers.

Unlike her, Carol Lopez23 seemed more interested in keeping the argument going.

Or perhaps he would only bother to react once someone with a different perspective finally posted something that didn't fit neatly into his established patterns of thought.

There were times when he even found himself siding with those who went out of their way to insult anyone with a different opinion:
I was looking back through some of the older discussions on Reddit, and I stumbled upon this particular thread. It’s interesting how certain topics just refuse to stay buried, isn't it? Looking at the points being made here, I feel like we need to take a step back and look at the broader implications. It’s easy to get caught up in the immediate back-and-forth, but if you really dig into the underlying logic—or lack thereof—there’s a much larger pattern emerging. I guess what I’m trying to say is that we shouldn't just take these claims at face value. There seems to be a significant amount of nuance being missed by most of the people jumping into the fray. Maybe I'm being too cautious, but I suspect there's more to the story than what's being presented on the surface. It feels like we're circling the same arguments without ever actually addressing the core issue. It's almost as if everyone is talking past one another rather than engaging with the actual substance of the debate. I find myself wondering if anyone is truly listening, or if we're all just waiting for our turn to speak. Regardless, it's worth keeping an eye on how this evolves.

It’s happened quite often that even some of our most regular and active contributors have stepped up to make it crystal clear: the situation surrounding this topic has officially spiraled completely out of control.

Here is how Carol Lopez23 reacted:
I’ve been following this thread for a while now, and I have to say, some of the arguments being thrown around here are truly mind-boggling. It feels like we’re drifting further and further away from any kind of grounded reality. I was reading through some of the points made by Elizabeth Jackson, and honestly, I find myself questioning how we even get to this point of discourse. It seems like there’s a massive disconnect between what people claim to know and the actual evidence available to us. Maybe I’m just being overly cynical, but it feels like a lot of these theories are built on incredibly shaky foundations. Then you look at the comments from briskbison55, and it’s almost like we're speaking different languages. There’s this tendency to jump to these wild conclusions without stopping to ask if there's a simpler explanation right in front of our eyes. I guess it’s easy to get swept up in a narrative when it feels like everything is connected, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. Even looking at what Carol Lopez23 mentioned—it really makes me wonder about the influence of certain echo chambers online. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to separate genuine inquiry from what feels like organized misinformation. I mean, I try to keep an open mind, I really do, but at some point, you have to draw a line between curiosity and pure speculation. It’s a strange time to be searching for truth, isn't it? It feels like every time you think you've found a solid footing, someone comes along and pulls the rug out from under you with a new, even more outlandish theory. I suppose we'll just have to see which way the wind blows.

KLEOPATRA is back at it again, making comments about how rules should be bent:

And also:

I’m Marec, and I’ve been a dedicated member here for quite some time, bringing years of actual, hands-on experience with this kind of diet to the table:

I am fairly certain—and I can say this with a high degree of confidence regarding many others as well—that these specific members have just walked away from this thread because of exactly this kind of moderation.

If the recent wave of trolling, insults, and off-topic nonsense has truly spiraled out of control and crossed every reasonable line, I suppose this recent incident serves as the perfect evidence. Ryan Gomez4's statement It’s pretty obvious she really gets what’s going on here. You can tell she’s fully aware of how this topic is constantly being shut down and obstructed. Honestly, you can almost feel her desperation—that sense of feeling completely powerless to actually change anything, like she's just reached her absolute limit with all of it.

After seeing that, I felt compelled to step in and offer my own take on the situation. Ideas for improving how this forum functions..
Carol Lopez23 used some pretty vulgar and uncivil language to make it crystal clear that they're essentially trying to strip away the rights of anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with them.

I am well aware of how things work around here on Reddit. I fully recognize that everyone has every right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe a moderator’s role isn't to act as a judge—it shouldn't be their job to decide from their own personal standpoint whether someone else's opinion is nonsense, foolishness, or just plain stupidity. Their actual responsibility is simply to moderate according to the established community guidelines.

The controversial posts I’ve listed here... In the meantime, I’ve been consistently filing reports over and over again.
Even though quite a few days have passed since these were originally posted—and even though I’ve personally reported them several times, along with many other users who I’m certain have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response. No sanctions, no warnings, no deleted posts... nothing at all. It honestly feels as if there isn't even a moderator on duty here.

However, there certainly was one present back when I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. Those photos featuring the sheep....

There was also that instance where Jason Grant was unfairly handed a red card. Just some fabricated trolling..

Given everything that’s been laid out and explained here, it seems pretty obvious that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and totally subjective, which flies right in the face of many of the standard rules we have here on Reddit.
Because of all this, I’m actually looking into requesting an exemption from the Carol Lopez23 moderator to see if we can finally get this discussion back to a civilized level. My hope is that by doing so, we might steer things toward a more productive path, allowing those who are just here to troll or push fringe theories to either move on or finally find their way back to the actual heart of the topic.

Thanks, and all the best!

Elizabeth Jackson

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

Elizabeth Jackson said:...and the continuation...

Just to clarify, I’ve been an active participant in this thread for years now, and I have reported these kinds of inflammatory posts more times than I can count.
Carol Lopez23 didn't get banned. I don't think I've ever actually had a single post of mine reported. I mean, they didn't even bother to give a member like that a warning.
It seems I’m not the only one who has run into this; several other members on Reddit have shared the exact same experience.
If I recall correctly, the only person who ever actually stepped up to hand out a red card for such blatant rule-breaking was Ryan Gomez4.
There were plenty of instances where she didn't actually issue any formal warnings, but after enduring endless trolling, she did step in to caution the more problematic members. I can't help but wonder—wouldn't it be better if we could just get the discussion back to a civilized level?

Here are a few examples like that:
I suppose there’s a certain logic to how people approach this, though I find myself questioning if we’re even looking at the same map. It seems like everyone is trying to connect dots that might not actually be part of the same picture. Maybe I’m being too skeptical, or maybe I’m just seeing the gaps where others see solid lines. When you look at the way these theories circulate on platforms like Reddit, there's this sense of inevitable momentum. People grab onto a single thread and pull until the whole fabric unravels. It’s fascinating, in a way—this collective drive to find an underlying pattern behind everything. But I can't help but wonder if we aren't sometimes just projecting our own need for order onto what is essentially chaos. It’s easy to get swept up in the fervor, especially when the arguments feel so visceral. You see someone posting something that feels like a smoking gun, and suddenly, the entire consensus starts to shift. But I guess it’s worth pausing to ask: are we following the evidence, or are we just following the loudest voice in the room? I don't have all the answers, of course, but I do think we should be careful about how quickly we embrace a narrative just because it feels satisfyingly complete.
I’ve been thinking about this lately, and I honestly feel like we might be overlooking something pretty fundamental here. It seems to me that when people start throwing around these heavy-duty theories, there’s often a grain of truth buried under all the noise—even if the way it’s being presented feels a bit extreme. I was looking back at some of the points raised by Elizabeth Jackson, and while her perspective is certainly intense, it makes you wonder if we aren't just scratching the surface of what's actually happening. Maybe I’m overthinking it, but it feels like there’s a disconnect between what the mainstream media tells us and what a lot of people are seeing with their own eyes. It’s easy to dismiss these ideas as pure speculation, but if you look at the patterns, they don't always align perfectly with the official narrative. Then you have the arguments coming from briskbison55, which are even more provocative. It’s almost as if we're living in two different realities: one where everything is controlled and predictable, and another where things are much more chaotic and potentially manipulated. I guess it depends on how much you trust the institutions that are supposed to be keeping us safe and informed. Personally, I tend to lean toward a healthy dose of skepticism. It’s probably safer to assume that nothing is ever quite as simple as they want us to believe. Perhaps the real issue isn't whether these specific theories are true, but rather why they gain so much traction in the first place. When people feel unheard or misled by the powers that be, they naturally start looking for answers in places that others might call "fringe." It’s a bit of a cycle, really. The more the establishment pushes a single narrative, the more people will push back with something entirely different. I suppose we're all just trying to make sense of a world that feels increasingly unpredictable.
I honestly think we need to take a step back and look at this more objectively. It feels like we’re all getting caught up in the heat of the moment, but if you really sit down and parse through the arguments being made, there’s a significant amount of noise drowning out the actual substance. I guess what I’m trying to say is that we shouldn't be so quick to accept every claim as absolute truth without looking at the underlying data. Maybe I'm being too cautious, but I tend to feel that when everyone starts shouting at once, the nuance gets lost. It’s easy to fall into these echo chambers where we just validate each other's biases, rather than actually challenging them. I mean, if we want to get anywhere meaningful, we have to be willing to question even our own side. It’s a bit uncomfortable, sure, but isn't that the whole point of having these discussions? I was reading some stuff on Reddit the other day about similar debates happening over in Europe, and it struck me how universal this pattern is. People get passionate, emotions run high, and suddenly the logic becomes secondary to the feeling of being right. It’s a fascinating, if somewhat frustrating, human tendency. I suppose we could try to steer the conversation toward more empirical evidence, though I realize how difficult that can be once people have already dug their heels in. Just a thought.
I’ve been thinking about this conversation quite a bit lately, and I feel like we need to take a step back to look at the bigger picture. It seems like there's a fundamental misunderstanding of how these systems actually function, which leads people to jump to conclusions that don't quite hold up under scrutiny. When you look at the data—really dig into it rather than just skimming the headlines—you start to see the cracks in the mainstream narrative. I mean, I guess it’s easy to get swept up in the immediate reaction, but if we apply a bit of logic, the whole thing starts to look a little different. Maybe I'm being too cautious, but I tend to believe that things are rarely as simple as they are presented on the evening news. It’s interesting, really. You have one group of people insisting on a specific outcome, while another group, much like what we see discussed over on Reddit, is pointing out the inconsistencies. I find myself leaning toward the latter. There’s a certain level of skepticism required when dealing with large-scale institutions; otherwise, you risk missing the subtle shifts happening right under your nose. I’m not saying I have all the answers—far from it—but I do think we should be asking more pointed questions. If we aren't questioning the underlying assumptions, then we aren't really participating in a meaningful dialogue, are we? It feels like we're often just reacting to the symptoms rather than addressing the actual cause. Perhaps if we approached this with a bit more nuance, we wouldn't feel so polarized. Just a thought.
I’ve been sitting here thinking about this whole situation, and I honestly find myself wondering if we’re all just missing the forest for the trees. It feels like there’s this constant, heavy tension in our discussions lately, almost as if everyone is bracing for an impact that hasn't quite arrived yet. When you look at what people like Elizabeth Jackson are saying, or even follow the threads started by briskbison55, there seems to be this deep-seated suspicion regarding the information being fed to us through mainstream channels. I guess it’s understandable. In an era where trust in major institutions—whether it’s the federal government or big tech companies like Google—is at an all-time low, people naturally start looking for alternative explanations. Maybe that’s just how we’re wired now. I was reading some older arguments on Reddit recently, and it struck me how much of our discourse relies on whether or not we believe certain scientific consensus. If you lean toward the views shared by someone like Mercola, you start seeing patterns everywhere. You begin to question the very air we breathe or the food on our plates. It’s a rabbit hole, really. Once you start questioning the validity of standard medical advice or the motives behind large-scale environmental policies, it’s hard to go back to that simple, unquestioning way of living. Then you have the more intense theories floating around, like the ones concerning Chemtrails or the various agendas discussed by proponents of PROchemtrails. There’s a certain subset of the population that looks up at the sky and doesn't see weather patterns, but rather a coordinated effort of atmospheric manipulation. While I tend to approach these ideas with a fair amount of skepticism, I can't deny that the sheer scale of the anxiety they produce is real. It isn't just "nonsense," as some might dismissively call it; for many, it's a fundamental distrust of power itself. It’s a bit of a mess, isn't it? We’re caught between a desire for empirical, peer-reviewed certainty and a growing feeling that the "experts" might be hiding something significant. I don't have the answers, and I certainly don't want to claim I do. I think we just need to be careful about which voices we choose to amplify. Whether we're discussing politics in Washington, D.C., or debating the merits of raw food diets, the underlying issue remains the same: who do we actually trust when everything feels so uncertain?

I honestly can't help but wonder if we're all just missing something fundamental here. I was looking back at some of the discussions on Reddit, and it feels like there’s this massive gap between what people are actually experiencing and the official narrative being pushed. It’s almost like we’re living in two different realities. Maybe I’m being too cynical, but when you look at the sheer scale of what’s being discussed regarding things like Chemtrails ii, it seems wild to think that everyone is just collectively oblivious. I mean, I guess it’s possible that most people are just too busy with their own lives to notice, but for those of us who are paying attention, the patterns are becoming harder to ignore. It’s not even about wanting to find conspiracies; it’s more about trying to make sense of the data that's right in front of our eyes. I remember reading an argument from Elizabeth Jackson once where she pointed out how often these "outlier" observations get dismissed as mere coincidence. And while I agree that we have to be careful not to jump to conclusions without evidence, there comes a point where the coincidences start feeling a bit too choreographed, doesn't it? It's a delicate balance—trying to stay grounded in reality while acknowledging that reality might be much stranger than the news anchors would have us believe. I suppose the real question is: at what point does a series of anomalies stop being a fluke and start being a pattern? I don't have all the answers, of course, but I do think we need to keep asking the questions. Otherwise, we're just drifting along, accepting whatever version of the truth is handed to us.
I’ve been thinking quite a bit about the recent discussions regarding the intersection of scientific consensus and the various theories circulating online. It seems like we're constantly navigating this strange gray area where established academic institutions—the kind you'd find at Harvard or Stanford—clash with what people are seeing with their own eyes on platforms like YouTube. It’s an interesting tension, isn't it? On one hand, you have the official narrative provided by mainstream medical bodies, and on the other, you have voices like Mercola or even the controversial findings associated with Wakefield that continue to spark intense debate. I suppose it’s easy to feel like there's a massive disconnect between what the government tells us and the lived experiences of individuals who are looking deeper into things like Chemtrails or environmental shifts. Maybe I’m being too cautious, but I often find myself wondering if we're truly getting the full picture. There’s a certain level of skepticism that feels almost necessary nowadays. When you look at how information is filtered through major media conglomerates, it makes sense why people would turn to alternative perspectives to find what they consider the truth. It’s not necessarily about rejecting science, but perhaps about questioning who controls the lens through which we view it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the line between "fringe" and "fact" is much more porous than most people care to admit. It's a messy, complicated landscape, and I don't think there are any simple answers.

Unlike her, Carol Lopez23 seemed more interested in keeping the argument going.

Or perhaps he would only bother to react once someone with a different perspective finally posted something that didn't fit neatly into his established patterns of thought.

There were times when he even found himself siding with those who went out of their way to insult anyone with a different opinion:
I was looking back through some of the older discussions on Reddit, and I stumbled upon this particular thread. It’s interesting how certain topics just refuse to stay buried, isn't it? Looking at the points being made here, I feel like we need to take a step back and look at the broader implications. It’s easy to get caught up in the immediate back-and-forth, but if you really dig into the underlying logic—or lack thereof—there’s a much larger pattern emerging. I guess what I’m trying to say is that we shouldn't just take these claims at face value. There seems to be a significant amount of nuance being missed by most of the people jumping into the fray. Maybe I'm being too cautious, but I suspect there's more to the story than what's being presented on the surface. It feels like we're circling the same arguments without ever actually addressing the core issue. It's almost as if everyone is talking past one another rather than engaging with the actual substance of the debate. I find myself wondering if anyone is truly listening, or if we're all just waiting for our turn to speak. Regardless, it's worth keeping an eye on how this evolves.

It’s happened quite often that even some of our most regular and active contributors have stepped up to make it crystal clear: the situation surrounding this topic has officially spiraled completely out of control.

Here is how Carol Lopez23 reacted:
I’ve been following this thread for a while now, and I have to say, some of the arguments being thrown around here are truly mind-boggling. It feels like we’re drifting further and further away from any kind of grounded reality. I was reading through some of the points made by Elizabeth Jackson, and honestly, I find myself questioning how we even get to this point of discourse. It seems like there’s a massive disconnect between what people claim to know and the actual evidence available to us. Maybe I’m just being overly cynical, but it feels like a lot of these theories are built on incredibly shaky foundations. Then you look at the comments from briskbison55, and it’s almost like we're speaking different languages. There’s this tendency to jump to these wild conclusions without stopping to ask if there's a simpler explanation right in front of our eyes. I guess it’s easy to get swept up in a narrative when it feels like everything is connected, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. Even looking at what Carol Lopez23 mentioned—it really makes me wonder about the influence of certain echo chambers online. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to separate genuine inquiry from what feels like organized misinformation. I mean, I try to keep an open mind, I really do, but at some point, you have to draw a line between curiosity and pure speculation. It’s a strange time to be searching for truth, isn't it? It feels like every time you think you've found a solid footing, someone comes along and pulls the rug out from under you with a new, even more outlandish theory. I suppose we'll just have to see which way the wind blows.

KLEOPATRA is back at it again, making comments about how rules should be bent:

And also:

I’m Marec, and I’ve been a dedicated member here for quite some time, bringing years of actual, hands-on experience with this kind of diet to the table:

I am fairly certain—and I can say this with a high degree of confidence regarding many others as well—that these specific members have just walked away from this thread because of exactly this kind of moderation.

If the recent wave of trolling, insults, and off-topic nonsense has truly spiraled out of control and crossed every reasonable line, I suppose this recent incident serves as the perfect evidence. Ryan Gomez4's statement It’s pretty obvious she really gets what’s going on here. You can tell she’s fully aware of how this topic is constantly being shut down and obstructed. Honestly, you can almost feel her desperation—that sense of feeling completely powerless to actually change anything, like she's just reached her absolute limit with all of it.

After seeing that, I felt compelled to step in and offer my own take on the situation. Ideas for improving how this forum functions..
Carol Lopez23 used some pretty vulgar and uncivil language to make it crystal clear that they're essentially trying to strip away the rights of anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with them.

I am well aware of how things work around here on Reddit. I fully recognize that everyone has every right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe a moderator’s role isn't to act as a judge—it shouldn't be their job to decide from their own personal standpoint whether someone else's opinion is nonsense, foolishness, or just plain stupidity. Their actual responsibility is simply to moderate according to the established community guidelines.

The controversial posts I’ve listed here... In the meantime, I’ve been consistently filing reports over and over again.
Even though quite a few days have passed since these were originally posted—and even though I’ve personally reported them several times, along with many other users who I’m certain have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response. No sanctions, no warnings, no deleted posts... nothing at all. It honestly feels as if there isn't even a moderator on duty here.

However, there certainly was one present back when I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. Those photos featuring the sheep....

There was also that instance where Jason Grant was unfairly handed a red card. Just some fabricated trolling..

Given everything that’s been laid out and explained here, it seems pretty obvious that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and totally subjective, which flies right in the face of many of the standard rules we have here on Reddit.
Because of all this, I’m actually looking into requesting an exemption from the Carol Lopez23 moderator to see if we can finally get this discussion back to a civilized level. My hope is that by doing so, we might steer things toward a more productive path, allowing those who are just here to troll or push fringe theories to either move on or finally find their way back to the actual heart of the topic.

Thanks, and all the best!

Elizabeth Jackson

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Elizabeth Jackson said:...and the continuation...

Just to clarify, I’ve been an active participant in this thread for years now, and I have reported these kinds of inflammatory posts more times than I can count.
Carol Lopez23 didn't get banned. I don't think I've ever actually had a single post of mine reported. I mean, they didn't even bother to give a member like that a warning.
It seems I’m not the only one who has run into this; several other members on Reddit have shared the exact same experience.
If I recall correctly, the only person who ever actually stepped up to hand out a red card for such blatant rule-breaking was Ryan Gomez4.
There were plenty of instances where she didn't actually issue any formal warnings, but after enduring endless trolling, she did step in to caution the more problematic members. I can't help but wonder—wouldn't it be better if we could just get the discussion back to a civilized level?

Here are a few examples like that:
I suppose there’s a certain logic to how people approach this, though I find myself questioning if we’re even looking at the same map. It seems like everyone is trying to connect dots that might not actually be part of the same picture. Maybe I’m being too skeptical, or maybe I’m just seeing the gaps where others see solid lines. When you look at the way these theories circulate on platforms like Reddit, there's this sense of inevitable momentum. People grab onto a single thread and pull until the whole fabric unravels. It’s fascinating, in a way—this collective drive to find an underlying pattern behind everything. But I can't help but wonder if we aren't sometimes just projecting our own need for order onto what is essentially chaos. It’s easy to get swept up in the fervor, especially when the arguments feel so visceral. You see someone posting something that feels like a smoking gun, and suddenly, the entire consensus starts to shift. But I guess it’s worth pausing to ask: are we following the evidence, or are we just following the loudest voice in the room? I don't have all the answers, of course, but I do think we should be careful about how quickly we embrace a narrative just because it feels satisfyingly complete.
I’ve been thinking about this lately, and I honestly feel like we might be overlooking something pretty fundamental here. It seems to me that when people start throwing around these heavy-duty theories, there’s often a grain of truth buried under all the noise—even if the way it’s being presented feels a bit extreme. I was looking back at some of the points raised by Elizabeth Jackson, and while her perspective is certainly intense, it makes you wonder if we aren't just scratching the surface of what's actually happening. Maybe I’m overthinking it, but it feels like there’s a disconnect between what the mainstream media tells us and what a lot of people are seeing with their own eyes. It’s easy to dismiss these ideas as pure speculation, but if you look at the patterns, they don't always align perfectly with the official narrative. Then you have the arguments coming from briskbison55, which are even more provocative. It’s almost as if we're living in two different realities: one where everything is controlled and predictable, and another where things are much more chaotic and potentially manipulated. I guess it depends on how much you trust the institutions that are supposed to be keeping us safe and informed. Personally, I tend to lean toward a healthy dose of skepticism. It’s probably safer to assume that nothing is ever quite as simple as they want us to believe. Perhaps the real issue isn't whether these specific theories are true, but rather why they gain so much traction in the first place. When people feel unheard or misled by the powers that be, they naturally start looking for answers in places that others might call "fringe." It’s a bit of a cycle, really. The more the establishment pushes a single narrative, the more people will push back with something entirely different. I suppose we're all just trying to make sense of a world that feels increasingly unpredictable.
I honestly think we need to take a step back and look at this more objectively. It feels like we’re all getting caught up in the heat of the moment, but if you really sit down and parse through the arguments being made, there’s a significant amount of noise drowning out the actual substance. I guess what I’m trying to say is that we shouldn't be so quick to accept every claim as absolute truth without looking at the underlying data. Maybe I'm being too cautious, but I tend to feel that when everyone starts shouting at once, the nuance gets lost. It’s easy to fall into these echo chambers where we just validate each other's biases, rather than actually challenging them. I mean, if we want to get anywhere meaningful, we have to be willing to question even our own side. It’s a bit uncomfortable, sure, but isn't that the whole point of having these discussions? I was reading some stuff on Reddit the other day about similar debates happening over in Europe, and it struck me how universal this pattern is. People get passionate, emotions run high, and suddenly the logic becomes secondary to the feeling of being right. It’s a fascinating, if somewhat frustrating, human tendency. I suppose we could try to steer the conversation toward more empirical evidence, though I realize how difficult that can be once people have already dug their heels in. Just a thought.
I’ve been thinking about this conversation quite a bit lately, and I feel like we need to take a step back to look at the bigger picture. It seems like there's a fundamental misunderstanding of how these systems actually function, which leads people to jump to conclusions that don't quite hold up under scrutiny. When you look at the data—really dig into it rather than just skimming the headlines—you start to see the cracks in the mainstream narrative. I mean, I guess it’s easy to get swept up in the immediate reaction, but if we apply a bit of logic, the whole thing starts to look a little different. Maybe I'm being too cautious, but I tend to believe that things are rarely as simple as they are presented on the evening news. It’s interesting, really. You have one group of people insisting on a specific outcome, while another group, much like what we see discussed over on Reddit, is pointing out the inconsistencies. I find myself leaning toward the latter. There’s a certain level of skepticism required when dealing with large-scale institutions; otherwise, you risk missing the subtle shifts happening right under your nose. I’m not saying I have all the answers—far from it—but I do think we should be asking more pointed questions. If we aren't questioning the underlying assumptions, then we aren't really participating in a meaningful dialogue, are we? It feels like we're often just reacting to the symptoms rather than addressing the actual cause. Perhaps if we approached this with a bit more nuance, we wouldn't feel so polarized. Just a thought.
I’ve been sitting here thinking about this whole situation, and I honestly find myself wondering if we’re all just missing the forest for the trees. It feels like there’s this constant, heavy tension in our discussions lately, almost as if everyone is bracing for an impact that hasn't quite arrived yet. When you look at what people like Elizabeth Jackson are saying, or even follow the threads started by briskbison55, there seems to be this deep-seated suspicion regarding the information being fed to us through mainstream channels. I guess it’s understandable. In an era where trust in major institutions—whether it’s the federal government or big tech companies like Google—is at an all-time low, people naturally start looking for alternative explanations. Maybe that’s just how we’re wired now. I was reading some older arguments on Reddit recently, and it struck me how much of our discourse relies on whether or not we believe certain scientific consensus. If you lean toward the views shared by someone like Mercola, you start seeing patterns everywhere. You begin to question the very air we breathe or the food on our plates. It’s a rabbit hole, really. Once you start questioning the validity of standard medical advice or the motives behind large-scale environmental policies, it’s hard to go back to that simple, unquestioning way of living. Then you have the more intense theories floating around, like the ones concerning Chemtrails or the various agendas discussed by proponents of PROchemtrails. There’s a certain subset of the population that looks up at the sky and doesn't see weather patterns, but rather a coordinated effort of atmospheric manipulation. While I tend to approach these ideas with a fair amount of skepticism, I can't deny that the sheer scale of the anxiety they produce is real. It isn't just "nonsense," as some might dismissively call it; for many, it's a fundamental distrust of power itself. It’s a bit of a mess, isn't it? We’re caught between a desire for empirical, peer-reviewed certainty and a growing feeling that the "experts" might be hiding something significant. I don't have the answers, and I certainly don't want to claim I do. I think we just need to be careful about which voices we choose to amplify. Whether we're discussing politics in Washington, D.C., or debating the merits of raw food diets, the underlying issue remains the same: who do we actually trust when everything feels so uncertain?

I honestly can't help but wonder if we're all just missing something fundamental here. I was looking back at some of the discussions on Reddit, and it feels like there’s this massive gap between what people are actually experiencing and the official narrative being pushed. It’s almost like we’re living in two different realities. Maybe I’m being too cynical, but when you look at the sheer scale of what’s being discussed regarding things like Chemtrails ii, it seems wild to think that everyone is just collectively oblivious. I mean, I guess it’s possible that most people are just too busy with their own lives to notice, but for those of us who are paying attention, the patterns are becoming harder to ignore. It’s not even about wanting to find conspiracies; it’s more about trying to make sense of the data that's right in front of our eyes. I remember reading an argument from Elizabeth Jackson once where she pointed out how often these "outlier" observations get dismissed as mere coincidence. And while I agree that we have to be careful not to jump to conclusions without evidence, there comes a point where the coincidences start feeling a bit too choreographed, doesn't it? It's a delicate balance—trying to stay grounded in reality while acknowledging that reality might be much stranger than the news anchors would have us believe. I suppose the real question is: at what point does a series of anomalies stop being a fluke and start being a pattern? I don't have all the answers, of course, but I do think we need to keep asking the questions. Otherwise, we're just drifting along, accepting whatever version of the truth is handed to us.
I’ve been thinking quite a bit about the recent discussions regarding the intersection of scientific consensus and the various theories circulating online. It seems like we're constantly navigating this strange gray area where established academic institutions—the kind you'd find at Harvard or Stanford—clash with what people are seeing with their own eyes on platforms like YouTube. It’s an interesting tension, isn't it? On one hand, you have the official narrative provided by mainstream medical bodies, and on the other, you have voices like Mercola or even the controversial findings associated with Wakefield that continue to spark intense debate. I suppose it’s easy to feel like there's a massive disconnect between what the government tells us and the lived experiences of individuals who are looking deeper into things like Chemtrails or environmental shifts. Maybe I’m being too cautious, but I often find myself wondering if we're truly getting the full picture. There’s a certain level of skepticism that feels almost necessary nowadays. When you look at how information is filtered through major media conglomerates, it makes sense why people would turn to alternative perspectives to find what they consider the truth. It’s not necessarily about rejecting science, but perhaps about questioning who controls the lens through which we view it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the line between "fringe" and "fact" is much more porous than most people care to admit. It's a messy, complicated landscape, and I don't think there are any simple answers.

Unlike her, Carol Lopez23 seemed more interested in keeping the argument going.

Or perhaps he would only bother to react once someone with a different perspective finally posted something that didn't fit neatly into his established patterns of thought.

There were times when he even found himself siding with those who went out of their way to insult anyone with a different opinion:
I was looking back through some of the older discussions on Reddit, and I stumbled upon this particular thread. It’s interesting how certain topics just refuse to stay buried, isn't it? Looking at the points being made here, I feel like we need to take a step back and look at the broader implications. It’s easy to get caught up in the immediate back-and-forth, but if you really dig into the underlying logic—or lack thereof—there’s a much larger pattern emerging. I guess what I’m trying to say is that we shouldn't just take these claims at face value. There seems to be a significant amount of nuance being missed by most of the people jumping into the fray. Maybe I'm being too cautious, but I suspect there's more to the story than what's being presented on the surface. It feels like we're circling the same arguments without ever actually addressing the core issue. It's almost as if everyone is talking past one another rather than engaging with the actual substance of the debate. I find myself wondering if anyone is truly listening, or if we're all just waiting for our turn to speak. Regardless, it's worth keeping an eye on how this evolves.

It’s happened quite often that even some of our most regular and active contributors have stepped up to make it crystal clear: the situation surrounding this topic has officially spiraled completely out of control.

Here is how Carol Lopez23 reacted:
I’ve been following this thread for a while now, and I have to say, some of the arguments being thrown around here are truly mind-boggling. It feels like we’re drifting further and further away from any kind of grounded reality. I was reading through some of the points made by Elizabeth Jackson, and honestly, I find myself questioning how we even get to this point of discourse. It seems like there’s a massive disconnect between what people claim to know and the actual evidence available to us. Maybe I’m just being overly cynical, but it feels like a lot of these theories are built on incredibly shaky foundations. Then you look at the comments from briskbison55, and it’s almost like we're speaking different languages. There’s this tendency to jump to these wild conclusions without stopping to ask if there's a simpler explanation right in front of our eyes. I guess it’s easy to get swept up in a narrative when it feels like everything is connected, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. Even looking at what Carol Lopez23 mentioned—it really makes me wonder about the influence of certain echo chambers online. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to separate genuine inquiry from what feels like organized misinformation. I mean, I try to keep an open mind, I really do, but at some point, you have to draw a line between curiosity and pure speculation. It’s a strange time to be searching for truth, isn't it? It feels like every time you think you've found a solid footing, someone comes along and pulls the rug out from under you with a new, even more outlandish theory. I suppose we'll just have to see which way the wind blows.

KLEOPATRA is back at it again, making comments about how rules should be bent:

And also:

I’m Marec, and I’ve been a dedicated member here for quite some time, bringing years of actual, hands-on experience with this kind of diet to the table:

I am fairly certain—and I can say this with a high degree of confidence regarding many others as well—that these specific members have just walked away from this thread because of exactly this kind of moderation.

If the recent wave of trolling, insults, and off-topic nonsense has truly spiraled out of control and crossed every reasonable line, I suppose this recent incident serves as the perfect evidence. Ryan Gomez4's statement It’s pretty obvious she really gets what’s going on here. You can tell she’s fully aware of how this topic is constantly being shut down and obstructed. Honestly, you can almost feel her desperation—that sense of feeling completely powerless to actually change anything, like she's just reached her absolute limit with all of it.

After seeing that, I felt compelled to step in and offer my own take on the situation. Ideas for improving how this forum functions..
Carol Lopez23 used some pretty vulgar and uncivil language to make it crystal clear that they're essentially trying to strip away the rights of anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with them.

I am well aware of how things work around here on Reddit. I fully recognize that everyone has every right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe a moderator’s role isn't to act as a judge—it shouldn't be their job to decide from their own personal standpoint whether someone else's opinion is nonsense, foolishness, or just plain stupidity. Their actual responsibility is simply to moderate according to the established community guidelines.

The controversial posts I’ve listed here... In the meantime, I’ve been consistently filing reports over and over again.
Even though quite a few days have passed since these were originally posted—and even though I’ve personally reported them several times, along with many other users who I’m certain have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response. No sanctions, no warnings, no deleted posts... nothing at all. It honestly feels as if there isn't even a moderator on duty here.

However, there certainly was one present back when I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. Those photos featuring the sheep....

There was also that instance where Jason Grant was unfairly handed a red card. Just some fabricated trolling..

Given everything that’s been laid out and explained here, it seems pretty obvious that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and totally subjective, which flies right in the face of many of the standard rules we have here on Reddit.
Because of all this, I’m actually looking into requesting an exemption from the Carol Lopez23 moderator to see if we can finally get this discussion back to a civilized level. My hope is that by doing so, we might steer things toward a more productive path, allowing those who are just here to troll or push fringe theories to either move on or finally find their way back to the actual heart of the topic.

Thanks, and all the best!

Elizabeth Jackson

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

Elizabeth Jackson said:First off, I would kindly ask the supermoderator to take some time out of their schedule to review all the examples I’ve laid out here and provide a formal response.

It seems to me that Carol Lopez23 is more interested in making excuses for her lackluster moderation than actually addressing the blatant violations happening right in front of her eyes. Instead of holding people accountable for clear rule-breaking, she just tries to downplay the whole situation, which really waters down any sense of order here.
Actually, I would be more than happy to weigh in on this.

That’s simply not true.
When it comes to the whole vaccination debate, I feel like everything really boils down to two distinct camps: those who are firmly in favor and those who are completely against it.
The skeptical crowd isn't just looking at one side of the coin; they’re also examining the flip side—specifically the harmful consequences. They make a point to cite the consensus from various scientific fields, including immunology, medicine, toxicology, and biology, regarding the potential dangers involved.
Under American law, this would be classified as a civil infraction, which typically carries a fine.
In the civilized nations we’re heading toward—places like the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, or Belgium—there isn't even a specific legal violation on the books for this. Instead, it’s treated as a matter of personal freedom and individual choice.
So, what you’re saying is you’d actually want to throw people in jail and start swinging?

You're twisting my words. My actual grievance was regarding the blatant disregard for basic decency.
The user briskbison55 went ahead and called another forum member a total parasite.

You’re being intentionally evasive.

You’re being far too tolerant with certain people.
It isn't quite the same thing to just say it to someone. It’s almost like people are intentionally playing dumb. Playing dumb is honestly just a waste of everyone's time, and frankly, I think it should be strictly off-limits. Regarding the forum rules......to point 15), or perhaps just mentioning it to someone.

So, while a post like that shouldn't earn a ban, this one certainly should:
https://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=1528
Furthermore, you're letting users call each other idiots quite freely.
Is that actually consistent with the rules here on Reddit?

That's just not true.
You've been inconsistent with your moderation—you didn't ban this post:

That is a direct insult to America and its people, some of whom are active members of this forum.
Keep in mind that briskbison55 has already been warned by other users about using hate speech.

In context, there was nothing playful about it, not even a little bit.
You're allowing users to address one another with derogatory and offensive terms.
And now you're trying to brush it off as mere banter.

That's incorrect.
It's just your own bias and lack of education regarding this subject.
Plus, you're essentially mocking the topic itself.
Meteorological and military experiments are very much a proven reality.
It would be an absolute stretch to suggest that we’re all being intentionally poisoned—honestly, saying that would just make us look ridiculous—but you seem to be mocking every single aspect of this entire topic.
That particular user has already been given answers to those questions on several different occasions; if it’s necessary, I suppose I could provide the links to prove it.
The fact that he’s still out there trolling, and you aren't stepping in to penalize him, is exactly where the problem lies.

By the way, are terms like "insane," "paranoid delusions," and "questionable YouTube videos" actually considered valid critiques? Is there actually an argument to be made here? I mean, I’ve been sitting with this for a while, and I can't help but wonder if we're missing the forest for the trees. It feels like we're circling the drain of a debate that doesn't even have a solid foundation. Maybe I'm just being overly cautious, but it seems like most of the points being thrown around lack a certain... substance? I guess it depends on how you look at it, but from where I'm standing, it's all a bit thin.
Look, you’re more than welcome to hold whatever personal opinion you like—just like everyone else here—but moderation isn't based on whether we agree with your take. It's based strictly on following the site rules.
Well, there you have it. That’s exactly what subjective moderation looks like.

If I actually put some real effort into crafting a deep, comprehensive post, only to have some random troll snap back and call my thoughts "insane," how would I feel? Honestly, I suppose it’s a bit of a gut punch, isn't it? You spend all that time organizing your thoughts and trying to be coherent, and then someone just tosses out a label like that because they can't—or won't—engage with the actual substance. It’s frustrating, I guess. Maybe it's just the nature of the internet, but there’s definitely a certain sting when you realize your attempt at a meaningful contribution was met with nothing but mindless derision.

By all means, go right ahead. 🙂
I’d really appreciate it if a supermod could take a close look at the threads regarding Chemtrails and raw food. It’s become pretty obvious that I’ve been patiently ignoring various provocations and certain patterns of behavior—as you can see in the examples I’ve attached. If it helps the investigation, I can certainly provide specific dates as well. I suppose there isn't much to say about this particular topic without getting bogged down in the details, but I'll try my best to outline the scope from start to finish. It’s one of those things where you really have to look at the entire spectrum—from the very beginning all the way to the end—to truly grasp what we're dealing with. Maybe it sounds a bit tedious, but I think if we don't account for the full range, we're just missing the point entirely....just sitting there, waiting to see if the moderators would actually step in and say something.
Since she wasn't around to handle things, I finally stepped up—though only occasionally—to respond to those provocations in a way that felt somewhat appropriate.
If I happened to break any of the rules here, I honestly wouldn't mind if I were handed a penalty card.
I suppose that would just serve as further evidence that the moderation hasn't been handled quite as strictly as it should have been.

Is this actually against the rules of Reddit, or is it just based on your own subjective opinion?
Jason Grant used to get a lot of praise from other users on the nutrition threads—I can provide links if you actually want to see them—but he was constantly being targeted by trolls. Honestly, seeing how you handled things, I’m not surprised he made such an impulsive move, and he might have even left the site entirely. He's just like so many others I know for a fact who walked away specifically because of your biased moderation.
Regarding briskbison55, I really think a supermod should take a close look at their history over on the raw food threads—or honestly, any of the alternative topics, for that matter. If you actually sit down and review what they’ve been posting, you'll see just how much they engage in. I mean, does this person ever contribute a single constructive thought related to the actual subject at hand? It's hard to say, but I suspect the answer might be no.

Actually, that's incorrect.
The user's post actually uses a direct quote from:
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
NIKOLA JELIČIĆ
ROUSSEAU'S CRITIQUE OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT IDEA
OF PROGRESS: THREE STAGES OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Advisor: Dr. Raul Raunić, Associate Professor

That exact quote can be found on page 3.
The user's post had absolutely nothing to do with A. Hitler's thesis.
In fact, the user was simply quoting Rousseau's critique.
It would be quite a mistake—born out of pure ignorance, I assume—to think this had any connection to Hitler. And, if I may say so, briskbison55's posts touch upon Nazism on several occasions, sometimes subtly and sometimes quite overtly.
So, what we're looking at here is a direct, intentional insult, essentially hate speech echoing the genocidal rhetoric of Hitler's Wehrmacht and Nazi ideology. This is being repeated even after being warned by another user not to make unnecessary implications regarding "the Austrian painter," which is something 7 Nation did a few posts earlier, also without any hesitation.
To make matters worse, 7 Nation went even further by mentioning Hitler's "final solutions" with the clear intent to offend, rather than out of ignorance or an attempt at an Argumentum ad Hitlerum. Perhaps noting this might help you mitigate your own error and poor moderation?

Well, suggesting something is one thing, but outright insults are quite another:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=2774
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=2835

(Well, I suppose that last part was just cardboard.) 🙏But seriously, it only just showed up today, even though the post itself is already seven days old. I’ve actually reported it several times now, and I’m fairly certain I’m not the only one who noticed. Honestly, what were they waiting for all this time?

Without getting bogged down in everything we've already covered—and trust me, there are plenty of examples out there—I’ll just throw out a few quick ones here. I can certainly dig up more and list them all if I can find the time, though I can't make any promises on when that might be.
I was just scrolling through some old threads on Reddit when I stumbled upon this particular discussion, and it really got me thinking about how much certain perspectives have shifted over the years. It’s funny how we revisit these topics; sometimes you realize that what seemed like a wild theory back then is actually starting to feel more like common sense today. Looking at the arguments being thrown around, there's this persistent tension between those who trust the mainstream narrative and those of us who tend to look a bit deeper into the cracks. I guess it comes down to how much information you're willing to digest before you start questioning the status quo. Maybe some people are just naturally more skeptical, while others find comfort in the established order. I don't have all the answers, of course, but I do think it's worth questioning the official versions of events once in a while. It keeps the mind sharp, even if it does make things a little more complicated.
Just as a quick side note, I actually reported this post several times before, but nothing happened. It wasn't until I kept flagging it—almost to a fault, given how persistently I was being—that Ryan Gomez4 finally stepped in and issued the ban.

These aren't just some cheap, flimsy cardboard cutouts.

I might follow up with the rest of my response on Sunday once I'm back from my trip. 👋

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

Elizabeth Jackson said:First off, I would kindly ask the supermoderator to take some time out of their schedule to review all the examples I’ve laid out here and provide a formal response.

It seems to me that Carol Lopez23 is more interested in making excuses for her lackluster moderation than actually addressing the blatant violations happening right in front of her eyes. Instead of holding people accountable for clear rule-breaking, she just tries to downplay the whole situation, which really waters down any sense of order here.
Actually, I would be more than happy to weigh in on this.

That’s simply not true.
When it comes to the whole vaccination debate, I feel like everything really boils down to two distinct camps: those who are firmly in favor and those who are completely against it.
The skeptical crowd isn't just looking at one side of the coin; they’re also examining the flip side—specifically the harmful consequences. They make a point to cite the consensus from various scientific fields, including immunology, medicine, toxicology, and biology, regarding the potential dangers involved.
Under American law, this would be classified as a civil infraction, which typically carries a fine.
In the civilized nations we’re heading toward—places like the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, or Belgium—there isn't even a specific legal violation on the books for this. Instead, it’s treated as a matter of personal freedom and individual choice.
So, what you’re saying is you’d actually want to throw people in jail and start swinging?

You're twisting my words. My actual grievance was regarding the blatant disregard for basic decency.
The user briskbison55 went ahead and called another forum member a total parasite.

You’re being intentionally evasive.

You’re being far too tolerant with certain people.
It isn't quite the same thing to just say it to someone. It’s almost like people are intentionally playing dumb. Playing dumb is honestly just a waste of everyone's time, and frankly, I think it should be strictly off-limits. Regarding the forum rules......to point 15), or perhaps just mentioning it to someone.

So, while a post like that shouldn't earn a ban, this one certainly should:
https://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=1528
Furthermore, you're letting users call each other idiots quite freely.
Is that actually consistent with the rules here on Reddit?

That's just not true.
You've been inconsistent with your moderation—you didn't ban this post:

That is a direct insult to America and its people, some of whom are active members of this forum.
Keep in mind that briskbison55 has already been warned by other users about using hate speech.

In context, there was nothing playful about it, not even a little bit.
You're allowing users to address one another with derogatory and offensive terms.
And now you're trying to brush it off as mere banter.

That's incorrect.
It's just your own bias and lack of education regarding this subject.
Plus, you're essentially mocking the topic itself.
Meteorological and military experiments are very much a proven reality.
It would be an absolute stretch to suggest that we’re all being intentionally poisoned—honestly, saying that would just make us look ridiculous—but you seem to be mocking every single aspect of this entire topic.
That particular user has already been given answers to those questions on several different occasions; if it’s necessary, I suppose I could provide the links to prove it.
The fact that he’s still out there trolling, and you aren't stepping in to penalize him, is exactly where the problem lies.

By the way, are terms like "insane," "paranoid delusions," and "questionable YouTube videos" actually considered valid critiques? Is there actually an argument to be made here? I mean, I’ve been sitting with this for a while, and I can't help but wonder if we're missing the forest for the trees. It feels like we're circling the drain of a debate that doesn't even have a solid foundation. Maybe I'm just being overly cautious, but it seems like most of the points being thrown around lack a certain... substance? I guess it depends on how you look at it, but from where I'm standing, it's all a bit thin.
Look, you’re more than welcome to hold whatever personal opinion you like—just like everyone else here—but moderation isn't based on whether we agree with your take. It's based strictly on following the site rules.
Well, there you have it. That’s exactly what subjective moderation looks like.

If I actually put some real effort into crafting a deep, comprehensive post, only to have some random troll snap back and call my thoughts "insane," how would I feel? Honestly, I suppose it’s a bit of a gut punch, isn't it? You spend all that time organizing your thoughts and trying to be coherent, and then someone just tosses out a label like that because they can't—or won't—engage with the actual substance. It’s frustrating, I guess. Maybe it's just the nature of the internet, but there’s definitely a certain sting when you realize your attempt at a meaningful contribution was met with nothing but mindless derision.

By all means, go right ahead. 🙂
I’d really appreciate it if a supermod could take a close look at the threads regarding Chemtrails and raw food. It’s become pretty obvious that I’ve been patiently ignoring various provocations and certain patterns of behavior—as you can see in the examples I’ve attached. If it helps the investigation, I can certainly provide specific dates as well. I suppose there isn't much to say about this particular topic without getting bogged down in the details, but I'll try my best to outline the scope from start to finish. It’s one of those things where you really have to look at the entire spectrum—from the very beginning all the way to the end—to truly grasp what we're dealing with. Maybe it sounds a bit tedious, but I think if we don't account for the full range, we're just missing the point entirely....just sitting there, waiting to see if the moderators would actually step in and say something.
Since she wasn't around to handle things, I finally stepped up—though only occasionally—to respond to those provocations in a way that felt somewhat appropriate.
If I happened to break any of the rules here, I honestly wouldn't mind if I were handed a penalty card.
I suppose that would just serve as further evidence that the moderation hasn't been handled quite as strictly as it should have been.

Is this actually against the rules of Reddit, or is it just based on your own subjective opinion?
Jason Grant used to get a lot of praise from other users on the nutrition threads—I can provide links if you actually want to see them—but he was constantly being targeted by trolls. Honestly, seeing how you handled things, I’m not surprised he made such an impulsive move, and he might have even left the site entirely. He's just like so many others I know for a fact who walked away specifically because of your biased moderation.
Regarding briskbison55, I really think a supermod should take a close look at their history over on the raw food threads—or honestly, any of the alternative topics, for that matter. If you actually sit down and review what they’ve been posting, you'll see just how much they engage in. I mean, does this person ever contribute a single constructive thought related to the actual subject at hand? It's hard to say, but I suspect the answer might be no.

Actually, that's incorrect.
The user's post actually uses a direct quote from:
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
NIKOLA JELIČIĆ
ROUSSEAU'S CRITIQUE OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT IDEA
OF PROGRESS: THREE STAGES OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Advisor: Dr. Raul Raunić, Associate Professor

That exact quote can be found on page 3.
The user's post had absolutely nothing to do with A. Hitler's thesis.
In fact, the user was simply quoting Rousseau's critique.
It would be quite a mistake—born out of pure ignorance, I assume—to think this had any connection to Hitler. And, if I may say so, briskbison55's posts touch upon Nazism on several occasions, sometimes subtly and sometimes quite overtly.
So, what we're looking at here is a direct, intentional insult, essentially hate speech echoing the genocidal rhetoric of Hitler's Wehrmacht and Nazi ideology. This is being repeated even after being warned by another user not to make unnecessary implications regarding "the Austrian painter," which is something 7 Nation did a few posts earlier, also without any hesitation.
To make matters worse, 7 Nation went even further by mentioning Hitler's "final solutions" with the clear intent to offend, rather than out of ignorance or an attempt at an Argumentum ad Hitlerum. Perhaps noting this might help you mitigate your own error and poor moderation?

Well, suggesting something is one thing, but outright insults are quite another:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=2774
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=2835

(Well, I suppose that last part was just cardboard.) 🙏But seriously, it only just showed up today, even though the post itself is already seven days old. I’ve actually reported it several times now, and I’m fairly certain I’m not the only one who noticed. Honestly, what were they waiting for all this time?

Without getting bogged down in everything we've already covered—and trust me, there are plenty of examples out there—I’ll just throw out a few quick ones here. I can certainly dig up more and list them all if I can find the time, though I can't make any promises on when that might be.
I was just scrolling through some old threads on Reddit when I stumbled upon this particular discussion, and it really got me thinking about how much certain perspectives have shifted over the years. It’s funny how we revisit these topics; sometimes you realize that what seemed like a wild theory back then is actually starting to feel more like common sense today. Looking at the arguments being thrown around, there's this persistent tension between those who trust the mainstream narrative and those of us who tend to look a bit deeper into the cracks. I guess it comes down to how much information you're willing to digest before you start questioning the status quo. Maybe some people are just naturally more skeptical, while others find comfort in the established order. I don't have all the answers, of course, but I do think it's worth questioning the official versions of events once in a while. It keeps the mind sharp, even if it does make things a little more complicated.
Just as a quick side note, I actually reported this post several times before, but nothing happened. It wasn't until I kept flagging it—almost to a fault, given how persistently I was being—that Ryan Gomez4 finally stepped in and issued the ban.

These aren't just some cheap, flimsy cardboard cutouts.

I might follow up with the rest of my response on Sunday once I'm back from my trip. 👋

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

Elizabeth Jackson said:First off, I would kindly ask the supermoderator to take some time out of their schedule to review all the examples I’ve laid out here and provide a formal response.

It seems to me that Carol Lopez23 is more interested in making excuses for her lackluster moderation than actually addressing the blatant violations happening right in front of her eyes. Instead of holding people accountable for clear rule-breaking, she just tries to downplay the whole situation, which really waters down any sense of order here.
Actually, I would be more than happy to weigh in on this.

That’s simply not true.
When it comes to the whole vaccination debate, I feel like everything really boils down to two distinct camps: those who are firmly in favor and those who are completely against it.
The skeptical crowd isn't just looking at one side of the coin; they’re also examining the flip side—specifically the harmful consequences. They make a point to cite the consensus from various scientific fields, including immunology, medicine, toxicology, and biology, regarding the potential dangers involved.
Under American law, this would be classified as a civil infraction, which typically carries a fine.
In the civilized nations we’re heading toward—places like the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, or Belgium—there isn't even a specific legal violation on the books for this. Instead, it’s treated as a matter of personal freedom and individual choice.
So, what you’re saying is you’d actually want to throw people in jail and start swinging?

You're twisting my words. My actual grievance was regarding the blatant disregard for basic decency.
The user briskbison55 went ahead and called another forum member a total parasite.

You’re being intentionally evasive.

You’re being far too tolerant with certain people.
It isn't quite the same thing to just say it to someone. It’s almost like people are intentionally playing dumb. Playing dumb is honestly just a waste of everyone's time, and frankly, I think it should be strictly off-limits. Regarding the forum rules......to point 15), or perhaps just mentioning it to someone.

So, while a post like that shouldn't earn a ban, this one certainly should:
https://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=1528
Furthermore, you're letting users call each other idiots quite freely.
Is that actually consistent with the rules here on Reddit?

That's just not true.
You've been inconsistent with your moderation—you didn't ban this post:

That is a direct insult to America and its people, some of whom are active members of this forum.
Keep in mind that briskbison55 has already been warned by other users about using hate speech.

In context, there was nothing playful about it, not even a little bit.
You're allowing users to address one another with derogatory and offensive terms.
And now you're trying to brush it off as mere banter.

That's incorrect.
It's just your own bias and lack of education regarding this subject.
Plus, you're essentially mocking the topic itself.
Meteorological and military experiments are very much a proven reality.
It would be an absolute stretch to suggest that we’re all being intentionally poisoned—honestly, saying that would just make us look ridiculous—but you seem to be mocking every single aspect of this entire topic.
That particular user has already been given answers to those questions on several different occasions; if it’s necessary, I suppose I could provide the links to prove it.
The fact that he’s still out there trolling, and you aren't stepping in to penalize him, is exactly where the problem lies.

By the way, are terms like "insane," "paranoid delusions," and "questionable YouTube videos" actually considered valid critiques? Is there actually an argument to be made here? I mean, I’ve been sitting with this for a while, and I can't help but wonder if we're missing the forest for the trees. It feels like we're circling the drain of a debate that doesn't even have a solid foundation. Maybe I'm just being overly cautious, but it seems like most of the points being thrown around lack a certain... substance? I guess it depends on how you look at it, but from where I'm standing, it's all a bit thin.
Look, you’re more than welcome to hold whatever personal opinion you like—just like everyone else here—but moderation isn't based on whether we agree with your take. It's based strictly on following the site rules.
Well, there you have it. That’s exactly what subjective moderation looks like.

If I actually put some real effort into crafting a deep, comprehensive post, only to have some random troll snap back and call my thoughts "insane," how would I feel? Honestly, I suppose it’s a bit of a gut punch, isn't it? You spend all that time organizing your thoughts and trying to be coherent, and then someone just tosses out a label like that because they can't—or won't—engage with the actual substance. It’s frustrating, I guess. Maybe it's just the nature of the internet, but there’s definitely a certain sting when you realize your attempt at a meaningful contribution was met with nothing but mindless derision.

By all means, go right ahead. 🙂
I’d really appreciate it if a supermod could take a close look at the threads regarding Chemtrails and raw food. It’s become pretty obvious that I’ve been patiently ignoring various provocations and certain patterns of behavior—as you can see in the examples I’ve attached. If it helps the investigation, I can certainly provide specific dates as well. I suppose there isn't much to say about this particular topic without getting bogged down in the details, but I'll try my best to outline the scope from start to finish. It’s one of those things where you really have to look at the entire spectrum—from the very beginning all the way to the end—to truly grasp what we're dealing with. Maybe it sounds a bit tedious, but I think if we don't account for the full range, we're just missing the point entirely....just sitting there, waiting to see if the moderators would actually step in and say something.
Since she wasn't around to handle things, I finally stepped up—though only occasionally—to respond to those provocations in a way that felt somewhat appropriate.
If I happened to break any of the rules here, I honestly wouldn't mind if I were handed a penalty card.
I suppose that would just serve as further evidence that the moderation hasn't been handled quite as strictly as it should have been.

Is this actually against the rules of Reddit, or is it just based on your own subjective opinion?
Jason Grant used to get a lot of praise from other users on the nutrition threads—I can provide links if you actually want to see them—but he was constantly being targeted by trolls. Honestly, seeing how you handled things, I’m not surprised he made such an impulsive move, and he might have even left the site entirely. He's just like so many others I know for a fact who walked away specifically because of your biased moderation.
Regarding briskbison55, I really think a supermod should take a close look at their history over on the raw food threads—or honestly, any of the alternative topics, for that matter. If you actually sit down and review what they’ve been posting, you'll see just how much they engage in. I mean, does this person ever contribute a single constructive thought related to the actual subject at hand? It's hard to say, but I suspect the answer might be no.

Actually, that's incorrect.
The user's post actually uses a direct quote from:
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
NIKOLA JELIČIĆ
ROUSSEAU'S CRITIQUE OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT IDEA
OF PROGRESS: THREE STAGES OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Advisor: Dr. Raul Raunić, Associate Professor

That exact quote can be found on page 3.
The user's post had absolutely nothing to do with A. Hitler's thesis.
In fact, the user was simply quoting Rousseau's critique.
It would be quite a mistake—born out of pure ignorance, I assume—to think this had any connection to Hitler. And, if I may say so, briskbison55's posts touch upon Nazism on several occasions, sometimes subtly and sometimes quite overtly.
So, what we're looking at here is a direct, intentional insult, essentially hate speech echoing the genocidal rhetoric of Hitler's Wehrmacht and Nazi ideology. This is being repeated even after being warned by another user not to make unnecessary implications regarding "the Austrian painter," which is something 7 Nation did a few posts earlier, also without any hesitation.
To make matters worse, 7 Nation went even further by mentioning Hitler's "final solutions" with the clear intent to offend, rather than out of ignorance or an attempt at an Argumentum ad Hitlerum. Perhaps noting this might help you mitigate your own error and poor moderation?

Well, suggesting something is one thing, but outright insults are quite another:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=2774
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=2835

(Well, I suppose that last part was just cardboard.) 🙏But seriously, it only just showed up today, even though the post itself is already seven days old. I’ve actually reported it several times now, and I’m fairly certain I’m not the only one who noticed. Honestly, what were they waiting for all this time?

Without getting bogged down in everything we've already covered—and trust me, there are plenty of examples out there—I’ll just throw out a few quick ones here. I can certainly dig up more and list them all if I can find the time, though I can't make any promises on when that might be.
I was just scrolling through some old threads on Reddit when I stumbled upon this particular discussion, and it really got me thinking about how much certain perspectives have shifted over the years. It’s funny how we revisit these topics; sometimes you realize that what seemed like a wild theory back then is actually starting to feel more like common sense today. Looking at the arguments being thrown around, there's this persistent tension between those who trust the mainstream narrative and those of us who tend to look a bit deeper into the cracks. I guess it comes down to how much information you're willing to digest before you start questioning the status quo. Maybe some people are just naturally more skeptical, while others find comfort in the established order. I don't have all the answers, of course, but I do think it's worth questioning the official versions of events once in a while. It keeps the mind sharp, even if it does make things a little more complicated.
Just as a quick side note, I actually reported this post several times before, but nothing happened. It wasn't until I kept flagging it—almost to a fault, given how persistently I was being—that Ryan Gomez4 finally stepped in and issued the ban.

These aren't just some cheap, flimsy cardboard cutouts.

I might follow up with the rest of my response on Sunday once I'm back from my trip. 👋

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

Elizabeth Jackson said:First off, I would kindly ask the supermoderator to take some time out of their schedule to review all the examples I’ve laid out here and provide a formal response.

It seems to me that Carol Lopez23 is more interested in making excuses for her lackluster moderation than actually addressing the blatant violations happening right in front of her eyes. Instead of holding people accountable for clear rule-breaking, she just tries to downplay the whole situation, which really waters down any sense of order here.
Actually, I would be more than happy to weigh in on this.

That’s simply not true.
When it comes to the whole vaccination debate, I feel like everything really boils down to two distinct camps: those who are firmly in favor and those who are completely against it.
The skeptical crowd isn't just looking at one side of the coin; they’re also examining the flip side—specifically the harmful consequences. They make a point to cite the consensus from various scientific fields, including immunology, medicine, toxicology, and biology, regarding the potential dangers involved.
Under American law, this would be classified as a civil infraction, which typically carries a fine.
In the civilized nations we’re heading toward—places like the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, or Belgium—there isn't even a specific legal violation on the books for this. Instead, it’s treated as a matter of personal freedom and individual choice.
So, what you’re saying is you’d actually want to throw people in jail and start swinging?

You're twisting my words. My actual grievance was regarding the blatant disregard for basic decency.
The user briskbison55 went ahead and called another forum member a total parasite.

You’re being intentionally evasive.

You’re being far too tolerant with certain people.
It isn't quite the same thing to just say it to someone. It’s almost like people are intentionally playing dumb. Playing dumb is honestly just a waste of everyone's time, and frankly, I think it should be strictly off-limits. Regarding the forum rules......to point 15), or perhaps just mentioning it to someone.

So, while a post like that shouldn't earn a ban, this one certainly should:
https://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=1528
Furthermore, you're letting users call each other idiots quite freely.
Is that actually consistent with the rules here on Reddit?

That's just not true.
You've been inconsistent with your moderation—you didn't ban this post:

That is a direct insult to America and its people, some of whom are active members of this forum.
Keep in mind that briskbison55 has already been warned by other users about using hate speech.

In context, there was nothing playful about it, not even a little bit.
You're allowing users to address one another with derogatory and offensive terms.
And now you're trying to brush it off as mere banter.

That's incorrect.
It's just your own bias and lack of education regarding this subject.
Plus, you're essentially mocking the topic itself.
Meteorological and military experiments are very much a proven reality.
It would be an absolute stretch to suggest that we’re all being intentionally poisoned—honestly, saying that would just make us look ridiculous—but you seem to be mocking every single aspect of this entire topic.
That particular user has already been given answers to those questions on several different occasions; if it’s necessary, I suppose I could provide the links to prove it.
The fact that he’s still out there trolling, and you aren't stepping in to penalize him, is exactly where the problem lies.

By the way, are terms like "insane," "paranoid delusions," and "questionable YouTube videos" actually considered valid critiques? Is there actually an argument to be made here? I mean, I’ve been sitting with this for a while, and I can't help but wonder if we're missing the forest for the trees. It feels like we're circling the drain of a debate that doesn't even have a solid foundation. Maybe I'm just being overly cautious, but it seems like most of the points being thrown around lack a certain... substance? I guess it depends on how you look at it, but from where I'm standing, it's all a bit thin.
Look, you’re more than welcome to hold whatever personal opinion you like—just like everyone else here—but moderation isn't based on whether we agree with your take. It's based strictly on following the site rules.
Well, there you have it. That’s exactly what subjective moderation looks like.

If I actually put some real effort into crafting a deep, comprehensive post, only to have some random troll snap back and call my thoughts "insane," how would I feel? Honestly, I suppose it’s a bit of a gut punch, isn't it? You spend all that time organizing your thoughts and trying to be coherent, and then someone just tosses out a label like that because they can't—or won't—engage with the actual substance. It’s frustrating, I guess. Maybe it's just the nature of the internet, but there’s definitely a certain sting when you realize your attempt at a meaningful contribution was met with nothing but mindless derision.

By all means, go right ahead. 🙂
I’d really appreciate it if a supermod could take a close look at the threads regarding Chemtrails and raw food. It’s become pretty obvious that I’ve been patiently ignoring various provocations and certain patterns of behavior—as you can see in the examples I’ve attached. If it helps the investigation, I can certainly provide specific dates as well. I suppose there isn't much to say about this particular topic without getting bogged down in the details, but I'll try my best to outline the scope from start to finish. It’s one of those things where you really have to look at the entire spectrum—from the very beginning all the way to the end—to truly grasp what we're dealing with. Maybe it sounds a bit tedious, but I think if we don't account for the full range, we're just missing the point entirely....just sitting there, waiting to see if the moderators would actually step in and say something.
Since she wasn't around to handle things, I finally stepped up—though only occasionally—to respond to those provocations in a way that felt somewhat appropriate.
If I happened to break any of the rules here, I honestly wouldn't mind if I were handed a penalty card.
I suppose that would just serve as further evidence that the moderation hasn't been handled quite as strictly as it should have been.

Is this actually against the rules of Reddit, or is it just based on your own subjective opinion?
Jason Grant used to get a lot of praise from other users on the nutrition threads—I can provide links if you actually want to see them—but he was constantly being targeted by trolls. Honestly, seeing how you handled things, I’m not surprised he made such an impulsive move, and he might have even left the site entirely. He's just like so many others I know for a fact who walked away specifically because of your biased moderation.
Regarding briskbison55, I really think a supermod should take a close look at their history over on the raw food threads—or honestly, any of the alternative topics, for that matter. If you actually sit down and review what they’ve been posting, you'll see just how much they engage in. I mean, does this person ever contribute a single constructive thought related to the actual subject at hand? It's hard to say, but I suspect the answer might be no.

Actually, that's incorrect.
The user's post actually uses a direct quote from:
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
NIKOLA JELIČIĆ
ROUSSEAU'S CRITIQUE OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT IDEA
OF PROGRESS: THREE STAGES OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Advisor: Dr. Raul Raunić, Associate Professor

That exact quote can be found on page 3.
The user's post had absolutely nothing to do with A. Hitler's thesis.
In fact, the user was simply quoting Rousseau's critique.
It would be quite a mistake—born out of pure ignorance, I assume—to think this had any connection to Hitler. And, if I may say so, briskbison55's posts touch upon Nazism on several occasions, sometimes subtly and sometimes quite overtly.
So, what we're looking at here is a direct, intentional insult, essentially hate speech echoing the genocidal rhetoric of Hitler's Wehrmacht and Nazi ideology. This is being repeated even after being warned by another user not to make unnecessary implications regarding "the Austrian painter," which is something 7 Nation did a few posts earlier, also without any hesitation.
To make matters worse, 7 Nation went even further by mentioning Hitler's "final solutions" with the clear intent to offend, rather than out of ignorance or an attempt at an Argumentum ad Hitlerum. Perhaps noting this might help you mitigate your own error and poor moderation?

Well, suggesting something is one thing, but outright insults are quite another:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=2774
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=2835

(Well, I suppose that last part was just cardboard.) 🙏But seriously, it only just showed up today, even though the post itself is already seven days old. I’ve actually reported it several times now, and I’m fairly certain I’m not the only one who noticed. Honestly, what were they waiting for all this time?

Without getting bogged down in everything we've already covered—and trust me, there are plenty of examples out there—I’ll just throw out a few quick ones here. I can certainly dig up more and list them all if I can find the time, though I can't make any promises on when that might be.
I was just scrolling through some old threads on Reddit when I stumbled upon this particular discussion, and it really got me thinking about how much certain perspectives have shifted over the years. It’s funny how we revisit these topics; sometimes you realize that what seemed like a wild theory back then is actually starting to feel more like common sense today. Looking at the arguments being thrown around, there's this persistent tension between those who trust the mainstream narrative and those of us who tend to look a bit deeper into the cracks. I guess it comes down to how much information you're willing to digest before you start questioning the status quo. Maybe some people are just naturally more skeptical, while others find comfort in the established order. I don't have all the answers, of course, but I do think it's worth questioning the official versions of events once in a while. It keeps the mind sharp, even if it does make things a little more complicated.
Just as a quick side note, I actually reported this post several times before, but nothing happened. It wasn't until I kept flagging it—almost to a fault, given how persistently I was being—that Ryan Gomez4 finally stepped in and issued the ban.

These aren't just some cheap, flimsy cardboard cutouts.

I might follow up with the rest of my response on Sunday once I'm back from my trip. 👋

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Elizabeth Jackson said:First off, I would kindly ask the supermoderator to take some time out of their schedule to review all the examples I’ve laid out here and provide a formal response.

It seems to me that Carol Lopez23 is more interested in making excuses for her lackluster moderation than actually addressing the blatant violations happening right in front of her eyes. Instead of holding people accountable for clear rule-breaking, she just tries to downplay the whole situation, which really waters down any sense of order here.
Actually, I would be more than happy to weigh in on this.

That’s simply not true.
When it comes to the whole vaccination debate, I feel like everything really boils down to two distinct camps: those who are firmly in favor and those who are completely against it.
The skeptical crowd isn't just looking at one side of the coin; they’re also examining the flip side—specifically the harmful consequences. They make a point to cite the consensus from various scientific fields, including immunology, medicine, toxicology, and biology, regarding the potential dangers involved.
Under American law, this would be classified as a civil infraction, which typically carries a fine.
In the civilized nations we’re heading toward—places like the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, or Belgium—there isn't even a specific legal violation on the books for this. Instead, it’s treated as a matter of personal freedom and individual choice.
So, what you’re saying is you’d actually want to throw people in jail and start swinging?

You're twisting my words. My actual grievance was regarding the blatant disregard for basic decency.
The user briskbison55 went ahead and called another forum member a total parasite.

You’re being intentionally evasive.

You’re being far too tolerant with certain people.
It isn't quite the same thing to just say it to someone. It’s almost like people are intentionally playing dumb. Playing dumb is honestly just a waste of everyone's time, and frankly, I think it should be strictly off-limits. Regarding the forum rules......to point 15), or perhaps just mentioning it to someone.

So, while a post like that shouldn't earn a ban, this one certainly should:
https://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=1528
Furthermore, you're letting users call each other idiots quite freely.
Is that actually consistent with the rules here on Reddit?

That's just not true.
You've been inconsistent with your moderation—you didn't ban this post:

That is a direct insult to America and its people, some of whom are active members of this forum.
Keep in mind that briskbison55 has already been warned by other users about using hate speech.

In context, there was nothing playful about it, not even a little bit.
You're allowing users to address one another with derogatory and offensive terms.
And now you're trying to brush it off as mere banter.

That's incorrect.
It's just your own bias and lack of education regarding this subject.
Plus, you're essentially mocking the topic itself.
Meteorological and military experiments are very much a proven reality.
It would be an absolute stretch to suggest that we’re all being intentionally poisoned—honestly, saying that would just make us look ridiculous—but you seem to be mocking every single aspect of this entire topic.
That particular user has already been given answers to those questions on several different occasions; if it’s necessary, I suppose I could provide the links to prove it.
The fact that he’s still out there trolling, and you aren't stepping in to penalize him, is exactly where the problem lies.

By the way, are terms like "insane," "paranoid delusions," and "questionable YouTube videos" actually considered valid critiques? Is there actually an argument to be made here? I mean, I’ve been sitting with this for a while, and I can't help but wonder if we're missing the forest for the trees. It feels like we're circling the drain of a debate that doesn't even have a solid foundation. Maybe I'm just being overly cautious, but it seems like most of the points being thrown around lack a certain... substance? I guess it depends on how you look at it, but from where I'm standing, it's all a bit thin.
Look, you’re more than welcome to hold whatever personal opinion you like—just like everyone else here—but moderation isn't based on whether we agree with your take. It's based strictly on following the site rules.
Well, there you have it. That’s exactly what subjective moderation looks like.

If I actually put some real effort into crafting a deep, comprehensive post, only to have some random troll snap back and call my thoughts "insane," how would I feel? Honestly, I suppose it’s a bit of a gut punch, isn't it? You spend all that time organizing your thoughts and trying to be coherent, and then someone just tosses out a label like that because they can't—or won't—engage with the actual substance. It’s frustrating, I guess. Maybe it's just the nature of the internet, but there’s definitely a certain sting when you realize your attempt at a meaningful contribution was met with nothing but mindless derision.

By all means, go right ahead. 🙂
I’d really appreciate it if a supermod could take a close look at the threads regarding Chemtrails and raw food. It’s become pretty obvious that I’ve been patiently ignoring various provocations and certain patterns of behavior—as you can see in the examples I’ve attached. If it helps the investigation, I can certainly provide specific dates as well. I suppose there isn't much to say about this particular topic without getting bogged down in the details, but I'll try my best to outline the scope from start to finish. It’s one of those things where you really have to look at the entire spectrum—from the very beginning all the way to the end—to truly grasp what we're dealing with. Maybe it sounds a bit tedious, but I think if we don't account for the full range, we're just missing the point entirely....just sitting there, waiting to see if the moderators would actually step in and say something.
Since she wasn't around to handle things, I finally stepped up—though only occasionally—to respond to those provocations in a way that felt somewhat appropriate.
If I happened to break any of the rules here, I honestly wouldn't mind if I were handed a penalty card.
I suppose that would just serve as further evidence that the moderation hasn't been handled quite as strictly as it should have been.

Is this actually against the rules of Reddit, or is it just based on your own subjective opinion?
Jason Grant used to get a lot of praise from other users on the nutrition threads—I can provide links if you actually want to see them—but he was constantly being targeted by trolls. Honestly, seeing how you handled things, I’m not surprised he made such an impulsive move, and he might have even left the site entirely. He's just like so many others I know for a fact who walked away specifically because of your biased moderation.
Regarding briskbison55, I really think a supermod should take a close look at their history over on the raw food threads—or honestly, any of the alternative topics, for that matter. If you actually sit down and review what they’ve been posting, you'll see just how much they engage in. I mean, does this person ever contribute a single constructive thought related to the actual subject at hand? It's hard to say, but I suspect the answer might be no.

Actually, that's incorrect.
The user's post actually uses a direct quote from:
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
NIKOLA JELIČIĆ
ROUSSEAU'S CRITIQUE OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT IDEA
OF PROGRESS: THREE STAGES OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Advisor: Dr. Raul Raunić, Associate Professor

That exact quote can be found on page 3.
The user's post had absolutely nothing to do with A. Hitler's thesis.
In fact, the user was simply quoting Rousseau's critique.
It would be quite a mistake—born out of pure ignorance, I assume—to think this had any connection to Hitler. And, if I may say so, briskbison55's posts touch upon Nazism on several occasions, sometimes subtly and sometimes quite overtly.
So, what we're looking at here is a direct, intentional insult, essentially hate speech echoing the genocidal rhetoric of Hitler's Wehrmacht and Nazi ideology. This is being repeated even after being warned by another user not to make unnecessary implications regarding "the Austrian painter," which is something 7 Nation did a few posts earlier, also without any hesitation.
To make matters worse, 7 Nation went even further by mentioning Hitler's "final solutions" with the clear intent to offend, rather than out of ignorance or an attempt at an Argumentum ad Hitlerum. Perhaps noting this might help you mitigate your own error and poor moderation?

Well, suggesting something is one thing, but outright insults are quite another:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=2774
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=2835

(Well, I suppose that last part was just cardboard.) 🙏But seriously, it only just showed up today, even though the post itself is already seven days old. I’ve actually reported it several times now, and I’m fairly certain I’m not the only one who noticed. Honestly, what were they waiting for all this time?

Without getting bogged down in everything we've already covered—and trust me, there are plenty of examples out there—I’ll just throw out a few quick ones here. I can certainly dig up more and list them all if I can find the time, though I can't make any promises on when that might be.
I was just scrolling through some old threads on Reddit when I stumbled upon this particular discussion, and it really got me thinking about how much certain perspectives have shifted over the years. It’s funny how we revisit these topics; sometimes you realize that what seemed like a wild theory back then is actually starting to feel more like common sense today. Looking at the arguments being thrown around, there's this persistent tension between those who trust the mainstream narrative and those of us who tend to look a bit deeper into the cracks. I guess it comes down to how much information you're willing to digest before you start questioning the status quo. Maybe some people are just naturally more skeptical, while others find comfort in the established order. I don't have all the answers, of course, but I do think it's worth questioning the official versions of events once in a while. It keeps the mind sharp, even if it does make things a little more complicated.
Just as a quick side note, I actually reported this post several times before, but nothing happened. It wasn't until I kept flagging it—almost to a fault, given how persistently I was being—that Ryan Gomez4 finally stepped in and issued the ban.

These aren't just some cheap, flimsy cardboard cutouts.

I might follow up with the rest of my response on Sunday once I'm back from my trip. 👋

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

Elizabeth Jackson said:First off, I would kindly ask the supermoderator to take some time out of their schedule to review all the examples I’ve laid out here and provide a formal response.

It seems to me that Carol Lopez23 is more interested in making excuses for her lackluster moderation than actually addressing the blatant violations happening right in front of her eyes. Instead of holding people accountable for clear rule-breaking, she just tries to downplay the whole situation, which really waters down any sense of order here.
Actually, I would be more than happy to weigh in on this.

That’s simply not true.
When it comes to the whole vaccination debate, I feel like everything really boils down to two distinct camps: those who are firmly in favor and those who are completely against it.
The skeptical crowd isn't just looking at one side of the coin; they’re also examining the flip side—specifically the harmful consequences. They make a point to cite the consensus from various scientific fields, including immunology, medicine, toxicology, and biology, regarding the potential dangers involved.
Under American law, this would be classified as a civil infraction, which typically carries a fine.
In the civilized nations we’re heading toward—places like the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, or Belgium—there isn't even a specific legal violation on the books for this. Instead, it’s treated as a matter of personal freedom and individual choice.
So, what you’re saying is you’d actually want to throw people in jail and start swinging?

You're twisting my words. My actual grievance was regarding the blatant disregard for basic decency.
The user briskbison55 went ahead and called another forum member a total parasite.

You’re being intentionally evasive.

You’re being far too tolerant with certain people.
It isn't quite the same thing to just say it to someone. It’s almost like people are intentionally playing dumb. Playing dumb is honestly just a waste of everyone's time, and frankly, I think it should be strictly off-limits. Regarding the forum rules......to point 15), or perhaps just mentioning it to someone.

So, while a post like that shouldn't earn a ban, this one certainly should:
https://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=1528
Furthermore, you're letting users call each other idiots quite freely.
Is that actually consistent with the rules here on Reddit?

That's just not true.
You've been inconsistent with your moderation—you didn't ban this post:

That is a direct insult to America and its people, some of whom are active members of this forum.
Keep in mind that briskbison55 has already been warned by other users about using hate speech.

In context, there was nothing playful about it, not even a little bit.
You're allowing users to address one another with derogatory and offensive terms.
And now you're trying to brush it off as mere banter.

That's incorrect.
It's just your own bias and lack of education regarding this subject.
Plus, you're essentially mocking the topic itself.
Meteorological and military experiments are very much a proven reality.
It would be an absolute stretch to suggest that we’re all being intentionally poisoned—honestly, saying that would just make us look ridiculous—but you seem to be mocking every single aspect of this entire topic.
That particular user has already been given answers to those questions on several different occasions; if it’s necessary, I suppose I could provide the links to prove it.
The fact that he’s still out there trolling, and you aren't stepping in to penalize him, is exactly where the problem lies.

By the way, are terms like "insane," "paranoid delusions," and "questionable YouTube videos" actually considered valid critiques? Is there actually an argument to be made here? I mean, I’ve been sitting with this for a while, and I can't help but wonder if we're missing the forest for the trees. It feels like we're circling the drain of a debate that doesn't even have a solid foundation. Maybe I'm just being overly cautious, but it seems like most of the points being thrown around lack a certain... substance? I guess it depends on how you look at it, but from where I'm standing, it's all a bit thin.
Look, you’re more than welcome to hold whatever personal opinion you like—just like everyone else here—but moderation isn't based on whether we agree with your take. It's based strictly on following the site rules.
Well, there you have it. That’s exactly what subjective moderation looks like.

If I actually put some real effort into crafting a deep, comprehensive post, only to have some random troll snap back and call my thoughts "insane," how would I feel? Honestly, I suppose it’s a bit of a gut punch, isn't it? You spend all that time organizing your thoughts and trying to be coherent, and then someone just tosses out a label like that because they can't—or won't—engage with the actual substance. It’s frustrating, I guess. Maybe it's just the nature of the internet, but there’s definitely a certain sting when you realize your attempt at a meaningful contribution was met with nothing but mindless derision.

By all means, go right ahead. 🙂
I’d really appreciate it if a supermod could take a close look at the threads regarding Chemtrails and raw food. It’s become pretty obvious that I’ve been patiently ignoring various provocations and certain patterns of behavior—as you can see in the examples I’ve attached. If it helps the investigation, I can certainly provide specific dates as well. I suppose there isn't much to say about this particular topic without getting bogged down in the details, but I'll try my best to outline the scope from start to finish. It’s one of those things where you really have to look at the entire spectrum—from the very beginning all the way to the end—to truly grasp what we're dealing with. Maybe it sounds a bit tedious, but I think if we don't account for the full range, we're just missing the point entirely....just sitting there, waiting to see if the moderators would actually step in and say something.
Since she wasn't around to handle things, I finally stepped up—though only occasionally—to respond to those provocations in a way that felt somewhat appropriate.
If I happened to break any of the rules here, I honestly wouldn't mind if I were handed a penalty card.
I suppose that would just serve as further evidence that the moderation hasn't been handled quite as strictly as it should have been.

Is this actually against the rules of Reddit, or is it just based on your own subjective opinion?
Jason Grant used to get a lot of praise from other users on the nutrition threads—I can provide links if you actually want to see them—but he was constantly being targeted by trolls. Honestly, seeing how you handled things, I’m not surprised he made such an impulsive move, and he might have even left the site entirely. He's just like so many others I know for a fact who walked away specifically because of your biased moderation.
Regarding briskbison55, I really think a supermod should take a close look at their history over on the raw food threads—or honestly, any of the alternative topics, for that matter. If you actually sit down and review what they’ve been posting, you'll see just how much they engage in. I mean, does this person ever contribute a single constructive thought related to the actual subject at hand? It's hard to say, but I suspect the answer might be no.

Actually, that's incorrect.
The user's post actually uses a direct quote from:
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
NIKOLA JELIČIĆ
ROUSSEAU'S CRITIQUE OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT IDEA
OF PROGRESS: THREE STAGES OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Advisor: Dr. Raul Raunić, Associate Professor

That exact quote can be found on page 3.
The user's post had absolutely nothing to do with A. Hitler's thesis.
In fact, the user was simply quoting Rousseau's critique.
It would be quite a mistake—born out of pure ignorance, I assume—to think this had any connection to Hitler. And, if I may say so, briskbison55's posts touch upon Nazism on several occasions, sometimes subtly and sometimes quite overtly.
So, what we're looking at here is a direct, intentional insult, essentially hate speech echoing the genocidal rhetoric of Hitler's Wehrmacht and Nazi ideology. This is being repeated even after being warned by another user not to make unnecessary implications regarding "the Austrian painter," which is something 7 Nation did a few posts earlier, also without any hesitation.
To make matters worse, 7 Nation went even further by mentioning Hitler's "final solutions" with the clear intent to offend, rather than out of ignorance or an attempt at an Argumentum ad Hitlerum. Perhaps noting this might help you mitigate your own error and poor moderation?

Well, suggesting something is one thing, but outright insults are quite another:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=2774
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=2835

(Well, I suppose that last part was just cardboard.) 🙏But seriously, it only just showed up today, even though the post itself is already seven days old. I’ve actually reported it several times now, and I’m fairly certain I’m not the only one who noticed. Honestly, what were they waiting for all this time?

Without getting bogged down in everything we've already covered—and trust me, there are plenty of examples out there—I’ll just throw out a few quick ones here. I can certainly dig up more and list them all if I can find the time, though I can't make any promises on when that might be.
I was just scrolling through some old threads on Reddit when I stumbled upon this particular discussion, and it really got me thinking about how much certain perspectives have shifted over the years. It’s funny how we revisit these topics; sometimes you realize that what seemed like a wild theory back then is actually starting to feel more like common sense today. Looking at the arguments being thrown around, there's this persistent tension between those who trust the mainstream narrative and those of us who tend to look a bit deeper into the cracks. I guess it comes down to how much information you're willing to digest before you start questioning the status quo. Maybe some people are just naturally more skeptical, while others find comfort in the established order. I don't have all the answers, of course, but I do think it's worth questioning the official versions of events once in a while. It keeps the mind sharp, even if it does make things a little more complicated.
Just as a quick side note, I actually reported this post several times before, but nothing happened. It wasn't until I kept flagging it—almost to a fault, given how persistently I was being—that Ryan Gomez4 finally stepped in and issued the ban.

These aren't just some cheap, flimsy cardboard cutouts.

I might follow up with the rest of my response on Sunday once I'm back from my trip. 👋

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

Elizabeth Jackson said:First off, I would kindly ask the supermoderator to take some time out of their schedule to review all the examples I’ve laid out here and provide a formal response.

It seems to me that Carol Lopez23 is more interested in making excuses for her lackluster moderation than actually addressing the blatant violations happening right in front of her eyes. Instead of holding people accountable for clear rule-breaking, she just tries to downplay the whole situation, which really waters down any sense of order here.
Actually, I would be more than happy to weigh in on this.

That’s simply not true.
When it comes to the whole vaccination debate, I feel like everything really boils down to two distinct camps: those who are firmly in favor and those who are completely against it.
The skeptical crowd isn't just looking at one side of the coin; they’re also examining the flip side—specifically the harmful consequences. They make a point to cite the consensus from various scientific fields, including immunology, medicine, toxicology, and biology, regarding the potential dangers involved.
Under American law, this would be classified as a civil infraction, which typically carries a fine.
In the civilized nations we’re heading toward—places like the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, or Belgium—there isn't even a specific legal violation on the books for this. Instead, it’s treated as a matter of personal freedom and individual choice.
So, what you’re saying is you’d actually want to throw people in jail and start swinging?

You're twisting my words. My actual grievance was regarding the blatant disregard for basic decency.
The user briskbison55 went ahead and called another forum member a total parasite.

You’re being intentionally evasive.

You’re being far too tolerant with certain people.
It isn't quite the same thing to just say it to someone. It’s almost like people are intentionally playing dumb. Playing dumb is honestly just a waste of everyone's time, and frankly, I think it should be strictly off-limits. Regarding the forum rules......to point 15), or perhaps just mentioning it to someone.

So, while a post like that shouldn't earn a ban, this one certainly should:
https://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=1528
Furthermore, you're letting users call each other idiots quite freely.
Is that actually consistent with the rules here on Reddit?

That's just not true.
You've been inconsistent with your moderation—you didn't ban this post:

That is a direct insult to America and its people, some of whom are active members of this forum.
Keep in mind that briskbison55 has already been warned by other users about using hate speech.

In context, there was nothing playful about it, not even a little bit.
You're allowing users to address one another with derogatory and offensive terms.
And now you're trying to brush it off as mere banter.

That's incorrect.
It's just your own bias and lack of education regarding this subject.
Plus, you're essentially mocking the topic itself.
Meteorological and military experiments are very much a proven reality.
It would be an absolute stretch to suggest that we’re all being intentionally poisoned—honestly, saying that would just make us look ridiculous—but you seem to be mocking every single aspect of this entire topic.
That particular user has already been given answers to those questions on several different occasions; if it’s necessary, I suppose I could provide the links to prove it.
The fact that he’s still out there trolling, and you aren't stepping in to penalize him, is exactly where the problem lies.

By the way, are terms like "insane," "paranoid delusions," and "questionable YouTube videos" actually considered valid critiques? Is there actually an argument to be made here? I mean, I’ve been sitting with this for a while, and I can't help but wonder if we're missing the forest for the trees. It feels like we're circling the drain of a debate that doesn't even have a solid foundation. Maybe I'm just being overly cautious, but it seems like most of the points being thrown around lack a certain... substance? I guess it depends on how you look at it, but from where I'm standing, it's all a bit thin.
Look, you’re more than welcome to hold whatever personal opinion you like—just like everyone else here—but moderation isn't based on whether we agree with your take. It's based strictly on following the site rules.
Well, there you have it. That’s exactly what subjective moderation looks like.

If I actually put some real effort into crafting a deep, comprehensive post, only to have some random troll snap back and call my thoughts "insane," how would I feel? Honestly, I suppose it’s a bit of a gut punch, isn't it? You spend all that time organizing your thoughts and trying to be coherent, and then someone just tosses out a label like that because they can't—or won't—engage with the actual substance. It’s frustrating, I guess. Maybe it's just the nature of the internet, but there’s definitely a certain sting when you realize your attempt at a meaningful contribution was met with nothing but mindless derision.

By all means, go right ahead. 🙂
I’d really appreciate it if a supermod could take a close look at the threads regarding Chemtrails and raw food. It’s become pretty obvious that I’ve been patiently ignoring various provocations and certain patterns of behavior—as you can see in the examples I’ve attached. If it helps the investigation, I can certainly provide specific dates as well. I suppose there isn't much to say about this particular topic without getting bogged down in the details, but I'll try my best to outline the scope from start to finish. It’s one of those things where you really have to look at the entire spectrum—from the very beginning all the way to the end—to truly grasp what we're dealing with. Maybe it sounds a bit tedious, but I think if we don't account for the full range, we're just missing the point entirely....just sitting there, waiting to see if the moderators would actually step in and say something.
Since she wasn't around to handle things, I finally stepped up—though only occasionally—to respond to those provocations in a way that felt somewhat appropriate.
If I happened to break any of the rules here, I honestly wouldn't mind if I were handed a penalty card.
I suppose that would just serve as further evidence that the moderation hasn't been handled quite as strictly as it should have been.

Is this actually against the rules of Reddit, or is it just based on your own subjective opinion?
Jason Grant used to get a lot of praise from other users on the nutrition threads—I can provide links if you actually want to see them—but he was constantly being targeted by trolls. Honestly, seeing how you handled things, I’m not surprised he made such an impulsive move, and he might have even left the site entirely. He's just like so many others I know for a fact who walked away specifically because of your biased moderation.
Regarding briskbison55, I really think a supermod should take a close look at their history over on the raw food threads—or honestly, any of the alternative topics, for that matter. If you actually sit down and review what they’ve been posting, you'll see just how much they engage in. I mean, does this person ever contribute a single constructive thought related to the actual subject at hand? It's hard to say, but I suspect the answer might be no.

Actually, that's incorrect.
The user's post actually uses a direct quote from:
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
NIKOLA JELIČIĆ
ROUSSEAU'S CRITIQUE OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT IDEA
OF PROGRESS: THREE STAGES OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Advisor: Dr. Raul Raunić, Associate Professor

That exact quote can be found on page 3.
The user's post had absolutely nothing to do with A. Hitler's thesis.
In fact, the user was simply quoting Rousseau's critique.
It would be quite a mistake—born out of pure ignorance, I assume—to think this had any connection to Hitler. And, if I may say so, briskbison55's posts touch upon Nazism on several occasions, sometimes subtly and sometimes quite overtly.
So, what we're looking at here is a direct, intentional insult, essentially hate speech echoing the genocidal rhetoric of Hitler's Wehrmacht and Nazi ideology. This is being repeated even after being warned by another user not to make unnecessary implications regarding "the Austrian painter," which is something 7 Nation did a few posts earlier, also without any hesitation.
To make matters worse, 7 Nation went even further by mentioning Hitler's "final solutions" with the clear intent to offend, rather than out of ignorance or an attempt at an Argumentum ad Hitlerum. Perhaps noting this might help you mitigate your own error and poor moderation?

Well, suggesting something is one thing, but outright insults are quite another:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=2774
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=2835

(Well, I suppose that last part was just cardboard.) 🙏But seriously, it only just showed up today, even though the post itself is already seven days old. I’ve actually reported it several times now, and I’m fairly certain I’m not the only one who noticed. Honestly, what were they waiting for all this time?

Without getting bogged down in everything we've already covered—and trust me, there are plenty of examples out there—I’ll just throw out a few quick ones here. I can certainly dig up more and list them all if I can find the time, though I can't make any promises on when that might be.
I was just scrolling through some old threads on Reddit when I stumbled upon this particular discussion, and it really got me thinking about how much certain perspectives have shifted over the years. It’s funny how we revisit these topics; sometimes you realize that what seemed like a wild theory back then is actually starting to feel more like common sense today. Looking at the arguments being thrown around, there's this persistent tension between those who trust the mainstream narrative and those of us who tend to look a bit deeper into the cracks. I guess it comes down to how much information you're willing to digest before you start questioning the status quo. Maybe some people are just naturally more skeptical, while others find comfort in the established order. I don't have all the answers, of course, but I do think it's worth questioning the official versions of events once in a while. It keeps the mind sharp, even if it does make things a little more complicated.
Just as a quick side note, I actually reported this post several times before, but nothing happened. It wasn't until I kept flagging it—almost to a fault, given how persistently I was being—that Ryan Gomez4 finally stepped in and issued the ban.

These aren't just some cheap, flimsy cardboard cutouts.

I might follow up with the rest of my response on Sunday once I'm back from my trip. 👋

Is there truly such a thing as genuine education regarding Chemtrails, or is it merely an exercise in spreading misinformation? One might wonder if we are witnessing a sincere attempt to enlighten the public, or if it is simply a way to circulate baseless theories under the guise of academic inquiry. When we consider the vast landscape of information available today, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between rigorous scientific study and mere speculation designed to stir unrest. It is much like trying to navigate a dense fog without a compass; without a clear, verifiable foundation, one can easily lose their way in a sea of unproven claims. 🤔 Is there an actual academic study supporting this? Or perhaps a specific curriculum at a university? While I certainly don't claim to be an expert in aerodynamics or meteorology, I find myself perfectly capable of listening to and accepting the explanations provided by those who actually hold those credentials—all without succumbing to the paranoia that we are witnessing some grand "global conspiracy against humanity," which is one of those theories being pushed around quite frequently (and, frankly, lacks any real logic). It seems to me that you proponents of alternative theories tend to do the exact opposite, so I am simply pointing you toward common sense.

It seems to me that the Forum member is merely attempting to dodge the core issue by scattering various empty platitudes—specifically those little memes, paranoid theories, and random clips you find all over YouTube.

By the way, those images are still available for anyone who wishes to view them, so please feel free to take a look and verify everything for yourselves.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Is this being deemed irrelevant based on the established rules of Reddit, or is it merely a reflection of your own subjective viewpoints?

Just to offer my perspective on this matter—regarding both of them. If one examines their entire body of work, the truth becomes abundantly clear; anyone with eyes to see will certainly recognize it.

Regarding nutritional recommendations, there really isn't any controversy to be found here, nor have posts of this nature ever been removed or flagged by moderators. 🤷

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
That assessment appears to be incorrect.
The forum member utilizes a verbatim quote from:
The University in Washington, D.C.
THE DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
NIKOLA JELIČIĆ
An Examination of Rousseau’s Critique regarding Enlightenment Ideals
PROGRESS: THE THREE STAGES OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Academic Mentor: Raul Raunić, Ph.D.

A verbatim quotation from the post made by the Reddit user can be found on the third page.
The comment posted by Forumašev had absolutely no connection whatsoever to the theories proposed by A. Hitler.
It appears that one fellow on Reddit was quoting the work of Rousseauov’s critique.
It would be quite an oversight to assume, simply due to a lack of information, that there is any connection to Hitler here. Furthermore, if one observes closely, briskbison55’s posts touch upon Nazism on several different occasions, sometimes through subtle implications and at other times with more direct assertions.
It appears we are dealing with a situation involving a direct and intentional insult, one that mirrors the rhetoric of hate speech and the genocidal constructs seen in the Final Solution under Hitler and the Wehrmacht. This individual persists in such behavior even after being cautioned by other users on Reddit not to recklessly imply connections to that "Austrian painter," an issue that briskbison55 also raised just a few posts ago without any clear justification.
The NATO entity, acting like 7 Nationarmy, went even further by referencing Hitler’s "final solutions" with clear intent to offend, rather than out of mere ignorance or an accidental *argumentum ad Hitlerum*. Given what you've pointed out, wouldn't it be wise to acknowledge your error regarding the poor moderation here?

I am specifically addressing the post by 7 Nationarmy; from what I can gather, he wasn't quoting anyone outside of this platform, nor did I get the impression he was invoking Nazism. As I previously noted, the reasoning is flawed, and in response to Jason Grant—perhaps 7 Nationarmy isn't aware that Jason Grant simply transcribed that from a scholarly work, given that no source was cited)

We could also delve into the segment where he claims: "Liberation from the shackles of ignorance is only possible through science which will ensure progress toward ever better
forms of social organization," though I suspect that might be going a bit too far. 😁

Elizabeth Jackson said:First off, I would kindly ask the supermoderator to take some time out of their schedule to review all the examples I’ve laid out here and provide a formal response.

It seems to me that Carol Lopez23 is more interested in making excuses for her lackluster moderation than actually addressing the blatant violations happening right in front of her eyes. Instead of holding people accountable for clear rule-breaking, she just tries to downplay the whole situation, which really waters down any sense of order here.
Actually, I would be more than happy to weigh in on this.

That’s simply not true.
When it comes to the whole vaccination debate, I feel like everything really boils down to two distinct camps: those who are firmly in favor and those who are completely against it.
The skeptical crowd isn't just looking at one side of the coin; they’re also examining the flip side—specifically the harmful consequences. They make a point to cite the consensus from various scientific fields, including immunology, medicine, toxicology, and biology, regarding the potential dangers involved.
Under American law, this would be classified as a civil infraction, which typically carries a fine.
In the civilized nations we’re heading toward—places like the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, or Belgium—there isn't even a specific legal violation on the books for this. Instead, it’s treated as a matter of personal freedom and individual choice.
So, what you’re saying is you’d actually want to throw people in jail and start swinging?

You're twisting my words. My actual grievance was regarding the blatant disregard for basic decency.
The user briskbison55 went ahead and called another forum member a total parasite.

You’re being intentionally evasive.

You’re being far too tolerant with certain people.
It isn't quite the same thing to just say it to someone. It’s almost like people are intentionally playing dumb. Playing dumb is honestly just a waste of everyone's time, and frankly, I think it should be strictly off-limits. Regarding the forum rules......to point 15), or perhaps just mentioning it to someone.

So, while a post like that shouldn't earn a ban, this one certainly should:
https://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=1528
Furthermore, you're letting users call each other idiots quite freely.
Is that actually consistent with the rules here on Reddit?

That's just not true.
You've been inconsistent with your moderation—you didn't ban this post:

That is a direct insult to America and its people, some of whom are active members of this forum.
Keep in mind that briskbison55 has already been warned by other users about using hate speech.

In context, there was nothing playful about it, not even a little bit.
You're allowing users to address one another with derogatory and offensive terms.
And now you're trying to brush it off as mere banter.

That's incorrect.
It's just your own bias and lack of education regarding this subject.
Plus, you're essentially mocking the topic itself.
Meteorological and military experiments are very much a proven reality.
It would be an absolute stretch to suggest that we’re all being intentionally poisoned—honestly, saying that would just make us look ridiculous—but you seem to be mocking every single aspect of this entire topic.
That particular user has already been given answers to those questions on several different occasions; if it’s necessary, I suppose I could provide the links to prove it.
The fact that he’s still out there trolling, and you aren't stepping in to penalize him, is exactly where the problem lies.

By the way, are terms like "insane," "paranoid delusions," and "questionable YouTube videos" actually considered valid critiques? Is there actually an argument to be made here? I mean, I’ve been sitting with this for a while, and I can't help but wonder if we're missing the forest for the trees. It feels like we're circling the drain of a debate that doesn't even have a solid foundation. Maybe I'm just being overly cautious, but it seems like most of the points being thrown around lack a certain... substance? I guess it depends on how you look at it, but from where I'm standing, it's all a bit thin.
Look, you’re more than welcome to hold whatever personal opinion you like—just like everyone else here—but moderation isn't based on whether we agree with your take. It's based strictly on following the site rules.
Well, there you have it. That’s exactly what subjective moderation looks like.

If I actually put some real effort into crafting a deep, comprehensive post, only to have some random troll snap back and call my thoughts "insane," how would I feel? Honestly, I suppose it’s a bit of a gut punch, isn't it? You spend all that time organizing your thoughts and trying to be coherent, and then someone just tosses out a label like that because they can't—or won't—engage with the actual substance. It’s frustrating, I guess. Maybe it's just the nature of the internet, but there’s definitely a certain sting when you realize your attempt at a meaningful contribution was met with nothing but mindless derision.

By all means, go right ahead. 🙂
I’d really appreciate it if a supermod could take a close look at the threads regarding Chemtrails and raw food. It’s become pretty obvious that I’ve been patiently ignoring various provocations and certain patterns of behavior—as you can see in the examples I’ve attached. If it helps the investigation, I can certainly provide specific dates as well. I suppose there isn't much to say about this particular topic without getting bogged down in the details, but I'll try my best to outline the scope from start to finish. It’s one of those things where you really have to look at the entire spectrum—from the very beginning all the way to the end—to truly grasp what we're dealing with. Maybe it sounds a bit tedious, but I think if we don't account for the full range, we're just missing the point entirely....just sitting there, waiting to see if the moderators would actually step in and say something.
Since she wasn't around to handle things, I finally stepped up—though only occasionally—to respond to those provocations in a way that felt somewhat appropriate.
If I happened to break any of the rules here, I honestly wouldn't mind if I were handed a penalty card.
I suppose that would just serve as further evidence that the moderation hasn't been handled quite as strictly as it should have been.

Is this actually against the rules of Reddit, or is it just based on your own subjective opinion?
Jason Grant used to get a lot of praise from other users on the nutrition threads—I can provide links if you actually want to see them—but he was constantly being targeted by trolls. Honestly, seeing how you handled things, I’m not surprised he made such an impulsive move, and he might have even left the site entirely. He's just like so many others I know for a fact who walked away specifically because of your biased moderation.
Regarding briskbison55, I really think a supermod should take a close look at their history over on the raw food threads—or honestly, any of the alternative topics, for that matter. If you actually sit down and review what they’ve been posting, you'll see just how much they engage in. I mean, does this person ever contribute a single constructive thought related to the actual subject at hand? It's hard to say, but I suspect the answer might be no.

Actually, that's incorrect.
The user's post actually uses a direct quote from:
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
NIKOLA JELIČIĆ
ROUSSEAU'S CRITIQUE OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT IDEA
OF PROGRESS: THREE STAGES OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Advisor: Dr. Raul Raunić, Associate Professor

That exact quote can be found on page 3.
The user's post had absolutely nothing to do with A. Hitler's thesis.
In fact, the user was simply quoting Rousseau's critique.
It would be quite a mistake—born out of pure ignorance, I assume—to think this had any connection to Hitler. And, if I may say so, briskbison55's posts touch upon Nazism on several occasions, sometimes subtly and sometimes quite overtly.
So, what we're looking at here is a direct, intentional insult, essentially hate speech echoing the genocidal rhetoric of Hitler's Wehrmacht and Nazi ideology. This is being repeated even after being warned by another user not to make unnecessary implications regarding "the Austrian painter," which is something 7 Nation did a few posts earlier, also without any hesitation.
To make matters worse, 7 Nation went even further by mentioning Hitler's "final solutions" with the clear intent to offend, rather than out of ignorance or an attempt at an Argumentum ad Hitlerum. Perhaps noting this might help you mitigate your own error and poor moderation?

Well, suggesting something is one thing, but outright insults are quite another:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=2774
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=2835

(Well, I suppose that last part was just cardboard.) 🙏But seriously, it only just showed up today, even though the post itself is already seven days old. I’ve actually reported it several times now, and I’m fairly certain I’m not the only one who noticed. Honestly, what were they waiting for all this time?

Without getting bogged down in everything we've already covered—and trust me, there are plenty of examples out there—I’ll just throw out a few quick ones here. I can certainly dig up more and list them all if I can find the time, though I can't make any promises on when that might be.
I was just scrolling through some old threads on Reddit when I stumbled upon this particular discussion, and it really got me thinking about how much certain perspectives have shifted over the years. It’s funny how we revisit these topics; sometimes you realize that what seemed like a wild theory back then is actually starting to feel more like common sense today. Looking at the arguments being thrown around, there's this persistent tension between those who trust the mainstream narrative and those of us who tend to look a bit deeper into the cracks. I guess it comes down to how much information you're willing to digest before you start questioning the status quo. Maybe some people are just naturally more skeptical, while others find comfort in the established order. I don't have all the answers, of course, but I do think it's worth questioning the official versions of events once in a while. It keeps the mind sharp, even if it does make things a little more complicated.
Just as a quick side note, I actually reported this post several times before, but nothing happened. It wasn't until I kept flagging it—almost to a fault, given how persistently I was being—that Ryan Gomez4 finally stepped in and issued the ban.

These aren't just some cheap, flimsy cardboard cutouts.

I might follow up with the rest of my response on Sunday once I'm back from my trip. 👋

That specific post doesn't warrant a penalty at all; the quote provided is nothing more than nonsense and sweeping generalizations (and really, does it even require translation?)

The rest has already been addressed above.

Sophia Ramos5 As stated by:
It appears to me that Carol Lopez23 is exhibiting a significant amount of bias in their role as moderator. I recall seeing a post where Ryan Gomez4 mentioned being a medical professional by trade, arguing that someone in that position should not be overseeing an alternative health discussion. Given our current focus on raw food, and considering how certain trolls are permitted to incessantly pollute this thread with their irrational outbursts without facing any repercussions, it seems quite clear that they ought to be barred from moderating any discussions regarding alternative medicine.

If a physician were to actually admit that an alternative approach holds any merit, they would essentially be spitting in their own face.
It seems as though absolutely no one is putting in any effort at all.

The discussion regarding raw food has become quite cluttered, and I believe it is high time we implement a formal poll to decide which specific posts should be removed to restore the integrity of the topic. It would be most prudent to prohibit trolls from accessing the thread entirely. Furthermore, to prevent bad actors from simply creating multiple accounts to skew the results, we should restrict voting privileges to those members who have been part of our community for at least a few months and have contributed a meaningful number of posts.

The individuals who consistently engage in polluting this discussion thread are:

It appears that Biljka112 and briskbison55 have entered the conversation, much like two seasoned observers stepping onto the stage of a grand theater to offer their unique perspectives on the unfolding drama.

I would be most grateful if the rest of you could kindly offer some suggestions...

It appears you have completely missed the mark on this one.

Is the act of derailing a discussion merely an attempt to undermine the core idea that we are all being treated like mindless sheep? Inferior, dull-witted, and nothing more than obedient little sheep.?

Elizabeth Cruz As stated by:
I find myself wondering exactly how much longer posts like these from moderators will be tolerated on the alternative boards without any disciplinary action being taken.

What exactly constitutes a valid reason for dismissal in this particular situation?

Gary Cox2 As stated by:
If someone chooses to live on a strict diet of raw food and spends their time sharing recipes with like-minded individuals in their own little community, then I truly don't see why anyone should care.
It seems to me that those who embrace the alternative lifestyle shouldn't be categorized under the umbrella of PDF health; rather, I believe we ought to provide those who have adopted this way of life as their daily standard a more comfortable corner within our community to call home.
If someone truly believes that those white streaks stretching across the sky are Chemtrails, I have to say, it’s quite laughable. One might wonder, what actual harm could such a phenomenon possibly be inflicting upon us? It seems to me that there are certain groups of people who would just as easily believe in Bigfoot or maintain that they possess the mental fortitude to move entire mountain ranges through sheer willpower alone.

It seems that no one is actually criticizing the lifestyle or the specific philosophy that such a choice is the most beneficial path for an individual—and I am speaking exclusively regarding the topic of raw food.

Gary Cox2 As stated by:
Allowing alternative viewpoints to be belittled or mocked on an alternative platform simply because their reasoning doesn't align with mainstream medicine is something I cannot support. After all, this is an alternative site; one should naturally expect perspectives that diverge from standard medical consensus..

However, presenting these views as universal truths—and positioning them as being contra to established science and medicine—is no longer merely a matter of ideology or personal choice; it carries implications for society as a whole. Rejecting proven facts, logic, and fundamental biology in favor of promoting paranoid ideas, which leads to the spread of disease and ultimately the proliferation of falsehoods, is something that cannot and must not be allowed to fly "under the radar."

Gregory Howard4 said:Everything Elizabeth Jackson wrote is spot on. Honestly, there are even worse cases out there—I’ve been following the raw food threads and other stuff over on the alternative boards for years now. But this kind of blatant, unfair moderation? It completely kills any desire to post. You can't even have a decent conversation because the constant trolling and provocation are just allowed to happen, and Carol Lopez23 clearly gives them a free pass. It’s pathetic, and I don't get how a supermoderator can be blind to it. Like they say, if it wasn't funny, it would be tragic!! Just like one commenter put it, if you want to destroy Reddit, just keep tolerating this absolute nonsense. Ignorance is bliss, or so the rulers of all failed empires used to say.

So, what you're saying is it’s best if there is no opposing side at all, right?

northernpilot2 said:Exactly this.
I just went through the whole thread, looking at all the quoted posts and the explanations for why people were or weren't banned.
Honestly, it sucks that things got this out of hand, especially with all the personal insults flying between users.
Moderator Carol Lopez23 mentioned earlier that the alternative section was never going to be "sterile," and suggested that some insults shouldn't result in bans for either side, and I think that's exactly where the wheels fall off.
Any blatant insult needs to be dealt with, period. It should apply to everyone equally. There shouldn't be any fear that enforcing rules will make the subforum too "sterile"—if anything, it's the opposite.
After reading back through everything, I totally agree that there are definitely posts that should have been flagged, but they weren't because Carol Lopez23, acting as moderator, decided to turn a blind eye to both sides. That tendency to look the other way is precisely why we're seeing inconsistent criteria and uneven moderation, which is what everyone is complaining about, including the person who started this appeal.

I know I'm probably repeating myself here, but since I don't want to go hunting for the specific posts where I publicly argued on the PŽK board that the standards for the alternative section need to be tightened up, I'll say it again right now: we need to start applying this kind of moderation immediately. It’s the only way to maintain the quality of the discussions and to make sure people realize that direct insults won't fly anywhere, regardless of how much people worry about making the forum feel too "sanitized."

No problem. Direct insults haven't been tolerated before either, but let's define exactly what we mean so everyone can see.
In other words, should I censor terms like nonsense, stupidity, or foolishness...? Or various insinuations regarding someone's health, competence, or intellect? I ask, purely so that the anti-vax, raw food, PROchemtrails, and similar crowds don't go wild clicking those report buttons.

Elizabeth Jackson said:Nice and northernpilot2, thank you both for taking the time to respond.

northernpilot2, I find myself agreeing with your assessment. It feels like there's an attempt here to resolve this using the path of least resistance—the most painless route possible—which, if my past experiences are any indication, doesn't exactly promise much in the way of actual improvement.
In my view, stricter moderation standards and a rigorous adherence to the forum rules should have been implemented a long time ago equally for everyone , which would have prevented a situation like this from ever arising in the first place.
I believe—and I suspect anyone watching this would agree—that moderation cannot, and should not, be handled so subjectively. One shouldn't moderate based on whether content fits a specific worldview, dismissing anything that doesn't align with their personal vision as mere idiocy, nonsense, and stupidity or simply moderating according to one's own personal convictions .
As long as things continue to be moderated this way, we aren't going to see any progress.

Just as a reminder, I’ve personally reached out to you directly twice before regarding the poor moderation surrounding the BAT kolo, where I also presented a literal mountain of evidence.
Some measures were taken, and there were some minor shifts for the better, but they were incredibly short-lived.
Before long, everything reverted to the old ways, and over time, the situation actually worsened. That’s evident from the examples I’ve provided, and I should point out that these are just the most recent instances; nearly 90% of them date back only within the last two or three months.
If necessary, I can certainly provide many more examples from earlier periods.
That is precisely why I’ve filed this complaint: because this has been dragging on forever and is a constant issue; it's really just a question of how intense it gets.
Believe me, I wouldn't dream of filing a complaint like this or wasting my time—or yours—digging through all these contentious posts (even though they aren't hard to find) if there wasn't a truly justified reason for doing so.

While I’d love to be wrong, if the situation regarding the moderators remains unchanged, I am quite certain that this "stricter moderation" will be applied only briefly before everything quickly slides right back to how it was.
And if that happens, what then? Are we just going to tighten the moderation criteria again? 😉

One more thing... when you speak about breaking the rules, you only seem to focus on crude insults (though Nice also mentions ad hominem attacks ). But what about the incessant spam, off-topic chatter, and those mocking, rude, and provocative posts posted by the very same group of members (led primarily by briskbison55 and Biljka112) that clearly aim to stir up arguments and disrupt the flow of discussion across various topics in the alternative section?
briskbison55 hasn't contributed a single constructive post regarding raw food, Chemtrails, or many other topics in the alternative section.
It’s a similar story with Biljka112—constant poking and provoking of those with differing views, just in a slightly more sophisticated and less overtly obnoxious way than briskbison55.
Are there truly no warnings or sanctions for spam, off-topic posting, provoking interlocutors, or bickering?
From what I can see in the forum rules (specifically points 4, 11, 12, 13, and 15), there absolutely should be.
And according to this as well.

?

Finally, I have one last question that is closely tied to this whole matter.
I only noticed this a bit later.
If I may ask—and I believe other users participating in the alternative section would also be interested—how did that conclude, and what were the specific decisions and actions taken by the super-moderators regarding that issue?

Everything has been explained quite clearly and is laid out for all to see. In what way is there cause for complaint?

Honestly, looking at what Elizabeth Jackson is whining about regarding my posts, I have to say I’m kind of impressed with myself. It’s wild how much schooling I actually absorbed, considering people are calling me an animal, someone with lower mental capacity, and worse. I’ve only really said something controversial twice—basically just pointing out that a certain viewpoint is idiotic and that only a complete jerk would blame life-saving vaccines for leukemia. There's just so much aggression and zero ability to communicate over on those vegan forums... but I guess that's just typical for people like us, right? The way they talk to us, like we're nothing but scavengers.

Elizabeth Jackson said:Nice and northernpilot2, thank you both for taking the time to respond.

northernpilot2, I find myself agreeing with your assessment. It feels like there's an attempt here to resolve this using the path of least resistance—the most painless route possible—which, if my past experiences are any indication, doesn't exactly promise much in the way of actual improvement.
In my view, stricter moderation standards and a rigorous adherence to the forum rules should have been implemented a long time ago equally for everyone , which would have prevented a situation like this from ever arising in the first place.
I believe—and I suspect anyone watching this would agree—that moderation cannot, and should not, be handled so subjectively. One shouldn't moderate based on whether content fits a specific worldview, dismissing anything that doesn't align with their personal vision as mere idiocy, nonsense, and stupidity or simply moderating according to one's own personal convictions .
As long as things continue to be moderated this way, we aren't going to see any progress.

Just as a reminder, I’ve personally reached out to you directly twice before regarding the poor moderation surrounding the BAT kolo, where I also presented a literal mountain of evidence.
Some measures were taken, and there were some minor shifts for the better, but they were incredibly short-lived.
Before long, everything reverted to the old ways, and over time, the situation actually worsened. That’s evident from the examples I’ve provided, and I should point out that these are just the most recent instances; nearly 90% of them date back only within the last two or three months.
If necessary, I can certainly provide many more examples from earlier periods.
That is precisely why I’ve filed this complaint: because this has been dragging on forever and is a constant issue; it's really just a question of how intense it gets.
Believe me, I wouldn't dream of filing a complaint like this or wasting my time—or yours—digging through all these contentious posts (even though they aren't hard to find) if there wasn't a truly justified reason for doing so.

While I’d love to be wrong, if the situation regarding the moderators remains unchanged, I am quite certain that this "stricter moderation" will be applied only briefly before everything quickly slides right back to how it was.
And if that happens, what then? Are we just going to tighten the moderation criteria again? 😉

One more thing... when you speak about breaking the rules, you only seem to focus on crude insults (though Nice also mentions ad hominem attacks ). But what about the incessant spam, off-topic chatter, and those mocking, rude, and provocative posts posted by the very same group of members (led primarily by briskbison55 and Biljka112) that clearly aim to stir up arguments and disrupt the flow of discussion across various topics in the alternative section?
briskbison55 hasn't contributed a single constructive post regarding raw food, Chemtrails, or many other topics in the alternative section.
It’s a similar story with Biljka112—constant poking and provoking of those with differing views, just in a slightly more sophisticated and less overtly obnoxious way than briskbison55.
Are there truly no warnings or sanctions for spam, off-topic posting, provoking interlocutors, or bickering?
From what I can see in the forum rules (specifically points 4, 11, 12, 13, and 15), there absolutely should be.
And according to this as well.

?

Finally, I have one last question that is closely tied to this whole matter.
I only noticed this a bit later.
If I may ask—and I believe other users participating in the alternative section would also be interested—how did that conclude, and what were the specific decisions and actions taken by the super-moderators regarding that issue?

Even if this were true—which it isn't—Sedmica actually serves a vital purpose for the entire PDF.
Just as those graphic warnings about cancer on cigarette packs serve to alert people to the dangers of smoking, Sedmica’s posts act as a warning to naive users about the perils of following dangerous, unproven, alternative nonsense.

Freedom of speech isn't an absolute shield; when you start peddling advice that could legitimately jeopardize someone else's health, there should absolutely be consequences.

briskbison55 said:I mean, that’s a pretty wild comparison to make, honestly. Like, when I ask why someone actually believes raw kale can cure them, you immediately jump to the idea that I'm going to go find a pet manual and call for animal extermination on another site. Who exactly is making fun of everyone? I haven't really noticed anyone on the alternative site just trolling. Most of us are just reacting to these... well, these really nonsensical treatises that get pulled out of context by people like Elizabeth Jackson and Jason Grant, and maybe the occasional other user. Because, I guess, most of the other people here—the ones I don't agree with—are actually pretty normal and know how to have a conversation.

Unlike Elizabeth Jackson, I don't feel like combing through old threads to hunt down all the "lovely" insults you've tossed my way. Is there even one single post of mine on the raw food topic where you didn't respond with your signature style? By the way, more people have told you that raw food isn't a cure-all, it's prevention. And I've made it clear multiple times that I eat this way for ethical reasons, not health ones. Though, honestly, if people believe they can be healed by Our Lady of Medjugorje, why wouldn't they believe in raw food?

Are you planning to head over to the Religion board to explain their delusions to believers too?

Ryan Gomez4 said:Look, nobody’s forcing you to read anything or post anything. It’s not like anyone’s going to stumble onto an FDA manual on pet care and decide all animals need to be wiped out, yet a huge crowd thinks it's perfectly fine to show up on the alternative sites just to mock everything being said.

The mods here constantly allow it. In fact, they actually encourage mockery—they seem to actively cultivate and protect trolls.

This alternative section has turned into a complete dumping ground for the forum. 😵

Here’s a quote from Carol Lopez23:

Quote : Nonsense
Nonsense deserves to be mocked. While you’re busy ignoring them, those people are actually trying to provide quality insights and make sense of things. By shutting out their logical points, you've essentially killed the conversation yourself. That's on you, not us.

Ryan Gomez4 said:Unlike Elizabeth Jackson, I don't feel like combing through old threads to hunt down all the "lovely" insults you've tossed my way. Is there even one single post of mine on the raw food topic where you didn't respond with your signature style? By the way, more people have told you that raw food isn't a cure-all, it's prevention. And I've made it clear multiple times that I eat this way for ethical reasons, not health ones. Though, honestly, if people believe they can be healed by Our Lady of Medjugorje, why wouldn't they believe in raw food?

Are you planning to head over to the Religion board to explain their delusions to believers too?

I have no clue which insults you're talking about, but I definitely wasn't belittling you, let alone insulting you. Whether you combed through them or not, here are a bunch of links Elizabeth Jackson posted; unfortunately, she just doesn't seem to get them, so she keeps jumping out of context. But aside from that thing she keeps telling me—that I eat dogs—I haven't directed a single insult at anyone. Also, there are people over there claiming raw food cures cancer, and Elizabeth Jackson is one of them. That’s just dangerous, irresponsible, and honestly pretty crazy if anyone thinks that's a solution instead of conventional medicine.

Religion? I guess we can agree that someone's prayer isn't quite the same thing as rejecting science. Or maybe we can't, but I'm still not "showering you with insults." If you look at my posts before these two characters started unloading on me, I was just asking for clarification and explaining what I eat raw, what I don't, and why. It was just a conversation. Then the radicals showed up, claiming Aloe Vera heals everything from psoriasis to Parkinson's, and okay, maybe that got me a little carried away—but that doesn't mean everyone there is acting like that.

Noah Diaz said:The mods here constantly allow it. In fact, they actually encourage mockery—they seem to actively cultivate and protect trolls.

This alternative section has turned into a complete dumping ground for the forum. 😵

Here’s a quote from Carol Lopez23:

Quote : Nonsense
Nonsense deserves to be mocked. While you’re busy ignoring them, those people are actually trying to provide quality insights and make sense of things. By shutting out their logical points, you've essentially killed the conversation yourself. That's on you, not us.

I wouldn't say that. I mean, calling someone an animal or saying they're mentally slow... that's what makes it a dumping ground. But I guess those kinds of insults don't really bother you when they're aimed at people you disagree with, right?

I’m actually quite pleased that Elizabeth Jackson brought me into this discussion... I really should have reached out to the top brass sooner. 😁

But perhaps it’s because those high-level executives are the type who simply aren't interested in anything beyond their own narrow scope. 😁

When I first joined this site, I read through all the rules and everything sounded wonderful on paper, but of course, achieving that in practice is much harder than it looks.

Naturally, moderators shouldn't be taking sides, but this isn't some sporting event where staying impartial is easy; once you start leaning one way or the other in certain threads, the balance is lost.

It’s also the case that on the alternative boards, they run topics that really belong in politics, sociology, natural sciences, or history... and they put them front and center. But frankly, who cares about all these fringe theories? Everything is right there on Wikipedia, and the real truth is what we were taught in our American schools... people just don't want to look at society as a whole planet.

I certainly support removing certain individuals from specific threads—you know, banning access—and I would honestly file a complaint against both moderators on the alternative board, given how much chaos is allowed to fester there.

And let's be honest, that chaos always seems to tilt in favor of officially accepted opinions on the alternative boards. That’s not how it should work, and someone ought to notice. Maybe they should post an official call for applications for anyone willing to moderate the alternative section, or whatever the standard procedure is.

Regardless, I wonder if they even bother reading every single post these days?

Even if they do, they could be doing a much better job. The alternative section is pure mayhem compared to the rest of the forum, and fixing that would be easy if only the moderators were actually competent.

Thousands of years ago, in the early forums of history, not just any random person could get a vote. A council had to review everything, and a person couldn't just step up without proving themselves to their elders. These moderators over on the alternative side are a total disaster.

It's clear that even for the big bosses, deciding who to pick is a tough call, and it's hard to make everyone happy. But that's the nature of management... sometimes you just have to make the hard calls.

Carol Lopez23, my grievance and critique regarding your moderation is rooted in the objective state of this community, my own long-standing experience here, the literature I’ve studied concerning the topics I write about (particularly regarding raw food), the expertise shared by others on these subjects, and concrete facts and results.
The issue isn't just that you approach these matters with skepticism—starting from a baseline that dismisses things you don't even fully grasp—but rather that you mockingly ridicule and deny all alternative topics and anything that doesn't align with your personal worldview and perspective.
While many alternative subjects haven't been scientifically codified yet, there is a valid argument that lived experience is a legitimate source of knowledge, one that defines the scope, possibilities, and boundaries of what we know.
Nihil est in intellectu quod non fuerit in sensu.

Certain segments have actually attempted scientific explanation—take neuro-nutrition, for instance, which studies how specific foods influence behavior and emotion. These branches of science are still in their infancy, making empirical conclusions incredibly valuable. Yet, you consistently make a sport of mocking them, much like you mock the experiential verification of numerous users who confirmed significant health improvements through dietary changes, only to see them leave the platform after being subjected to endless terror and troll attacks, all with your blessing and a visible sense of self-satisfaction.

Carol Lopez23, your assumptions, perceptions, and personal beliefs regarding alternative topics don't stem from experience; they are products of so-called "pure thought." Consequently, your truths and insights are merely a priori mental constructs. Instead of engaging, you employ thought manipulation and deflection, steering the conversation away from the central point to focus on trivialities.
Because of this, I truly believe the super-moderators will reach the only possible fair and just decision.

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

It is actually quite the opposite.
You deleted the ones that didn't suit your agenda, among others.
There were countless examples of deleted posts where people were openly and crudely insulting, which were rushed into deletion "so no one would see them," effectively saving the troll from receiving a warning card (I actually wrote to a super-moderator about this last year in my very first report).
I regret that I didn't "screenshot" them back then; I honestly never imagined things would escalate to this point, but if I had, it would represent an enormous embarrassment and a total checkmate for you right now.
However, a far larger number of posts—those involving blatant and obvious violations of the rules—were neither deleted nor penalized. I want to emphasize this: they were reported multiple times.
At the request of the super-moderators, I would be more than happy to list many such posts from the alternative sections.

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

Do you have a single post in the alternative section that looks remotely similar to, say, a post by the moderator Fish1968 in astrology?
Exampleposta Well, good morning to our moderator Fish1968. I just plucked this randomly from the last page of the alternative section—it’s all about astrology.
Even here, we have the moderator Fish1968 actively jumping into the fray, stepping in to explain things and actually participating in the discussion.
Trolls like briskbison55 and the rest of that crowd—the ones you clearly seem to champion—wouldn't last even a single day in a real environment.
Why?
To the moderation team—thank you for keeping things running smoothly!
If they actually have the guts, let them try!
Let them give it a shot over there, too. Transurfing. This particular thread is actually managed by some pretty excellent moderators. Even though I find myself on a completely different page when it comes to their actual stances and opinions, I have to admit... They’re just doing their jobs, and they're doing them quite thoroughly, if you ask me!
Your bias and lack of objectivity are the complete opposite of what they should be!
It’s not just that you aren't actually contributing anything to this discussion; you’re actively stifling it. You’re obstructing the conversation and quite frankly, driving away the very people who actually have expertise and the willingness to share it. I mean, some of them have already made themselves known here—and I know there are plenty more like them—but they seemingly have no idea that this thread is even open for discussion because of the atmosphere you're creating.
I will gladly submit at least 20 to 30 posts to the supermoderators upon request—specifically those where I am being particularly circuitous and cynical in my mockery, whether I'm targeting the thread itself or some other user who is attempting to write about it in a constructive manner.
After a post like that, you can usually expect an even more aggressive onslaught from the trolls—those folks who feel personally threatened by what you've written, naturally—though they’ll likely stay completely unhinged and incoherent.

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

I have absolutely no intention of getting dragged into a debate about menstruation, nor will I allow you to derail this discussion just to vent about your questionable moderation skills.
I'm just going to ask you—is it...? I suppose I should probably offer my own little take on the whole subject of menstruation, though I realize how subjective this all is. It’s one of those things that people tend to approach from wildly different angles—some see it through a strictly medical lens, others through a more holistic or even spiritual one, and then there are those who just view it as an annoying monthly inconvenience to be managed with Ibuprofen and a heating pad. Personally, I've always felt that the modern conversation around it feels a bit... sanitized? Or perhaps just overly clinical. We talk about hormones and cycles like we're reading a technical manual for a piece of machinery, rather than acknowledging the profound biological reality of what's actually happening. There's a certain rhythm to it that I think we've lost touch with in our fast-paced, highly processed society. Maybe it's just me, but I suspect that if we looked closer at how our bodies interact with nutrition and environmental factors, we might find a much more nuanced understanding of why cycles fluctuate or feel so disruptive. I'm not saying there isn't a massive role for traditional medicine, but I do wonder if we've perhaps leaned too heavily on quick fixes while ignoring the broader physiological picture. It's a complex dance of biology, and I guess I've always found it fascinating how much our lifestyle choices might influence that delicate balance. Regardless, it's clearly a deeply personal experience for everyone, and there's no single way to "correctly" feel about it. ...or whatever else comes to mind....the reason why that is. It seems the moderator is actually permitting personal attacks against this individual, essentially taking an open stance alongside those who are doing the insulting.?

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

We really can't have a productive conversation if you’re operating under the deep-seated conviction that... These are exclusively my own personal views, thoughts, and my vision for the world—consider this my personal manifesto for moderation purposes.
That’s exactly what led us to this point, and honestly, you’re just proving that your moderation style is biased and completely unfair. It seems they aren't even bothering to follow the community guidelines anymore; instead, they’re just operating entirely based on their own personal beliefs and agendas.

Look, you’re more than welcome to hold onto your own convictions—honestly, nobody is stopping you from doing that. But just because you feel strongly doesn't give you the right to belittle anyone else who sees things differently. It’s the same logic as moderation; you shouldn't be applying biased rules based on your personal beliefs, especially when those beliefs are just as subjective to you as someone else's views are to them.

I would like to kindly ask the supermoderators to please take a look at this. We absolutely cannot lose sight of this one specific detail that keeps surfacing in Carol Lopez23's recent posts. It's becoming impossible to ignore.Honestly, if you want the ultimate proof—and let’s be real, it’s practically a formal admission—of how biased and subjective the moderation here has become, look no further. It serves as a glaring guarantee that this exact style of oversight will just keep happening unless we make a firm decision to remove them from their position.

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

I have to say, I find myself agreeing with that sentiment regarding your posts—and, frankly, regarding the troll posts you seem so eager to champion. It extends even to your entire approach to "moderation" here.
Honestly, a post like yours would only fly if you were dealing with an incredibly incompetent moderator—someone exactly like yourself. Any other moderator who actually follows the rules would probably just toss this straight into the trash. I think they've made a mistake.And perhaps, it might even be permanent.

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

If you're up for it, feel free to drop some links to my previous posts where I clearly violated the site rules but somehow managed to avoid getting banned?
You kept pointing back to my problematic posts—the ones you claim haven't been flagged or removed—yet you weren't even able to cite a single one. 😉
Maybe it’s because if you actually lay them all out, it just becomes that final, damning piece of evidence—the proverbial period at the end of a sentence proving you weren't doing your job in the first place.

If someone happens to be violating... Forum Rules If any of those points are actually proven true, then we might as well just pack it all up and call it a day.
As far as I can tell, there isn't actually anything in the community guidelines that defines "patronizing" or "spouting nonsense." So, I suspect we might be looking at your own personal interpretation here—or perhaps you're just making up your own set of rules on the fly to justify how you "moderate."

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

Who exactly is that?I guess I should start by saying that things are feeling a bit different lately. I’ve been sitting here thinking about how much has shifted, and honestly, it feels like we’re all just trying to find our footing in a world that seems to be moving faster than any of us expected. Maybe it’s just me, but there’s this sense that the ground beneath us isn't quite as solid as it used to be. It’s interesting, really—how we can go from feeling so certain about everything to suddenly questioning the very foundations of what we thought was true. I don't mean to sound overly dramatic, but there's definitely a weight to it all, wouldn't you agree? It's almost as if we're collectively holding our breath, waiting for the next big shift to happen. Anyway, I suppose that's just my take on it."?
People are throwing all sorts of things out there; you’ve got some folks presenting established expert consensus, while others are voicing perspectives from the alternative scene. Then there are plenty of people just sharing their own personal takes based on the information they've gathered—which is their right, just as it's yours to have your own opinion—and many more are simply recounting their own lived experiences.
As for the rest, I really have no intention of getting dragged into a debate about various theories or how much money is being made off them. I won't sit here and accept you intentionally diluting the subject and steering the conversation away from the actual point.

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

So, am I acting as the judge here too?
In addition to my previous comments, I’d like to draw the special attention of the supermoderators to this specific post, and I have a direct question for them:
Is it even possible—or perhaps more importantly, is it even permissible—for someone who, besides everything mentioned above... personal perspectives So, I’ve been sitting here thinking about this, and I can't help but wonder: what exactly is that one glaring, insurmountable obstacle that keeps making moderation such an uphill battle? It seems like there's always something standing in the way, something that just makes the whole process feel fundamentally flawed or impossible to get right. I guess we could look at it from a few different angles, but honestly, it feels like there's a massive gap between intention and reality that just can't be bridged. Maybe it's the sheer scale of it, or perhaps it's something deeper within the structure itself. What do you all think? He’s openly calling for and supporting violence against anyone with a different opinion—literally advocating for physical assault—and we're supposed to believe he's being an objective moderator? I mean, seriously?
Well, there you have it. Now that the boxing up is finally done, I suppose all we can do is brace ourselves for the inevitable beating...
The evidence:

Carol Lopez23 said:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Warmest greetings to you!

Alternative Forum Subject Matters Vaccination, Chemtrails ii, water, living organisms, and the importance of consuming raw food.

NotePlease forgive the length of this message and the sheer volume of evidence I have attached, which simply could not be contained within a single post. My intention is to provide as much substantiation as possible to offer the clearest possible insight into the situation at hand, as I firmly believe that merely presenting five or six isolated examples would fail to constitute any meaningful proof.

It has become increasingly apparent that on these specific discussion threads, we have allowed a persistent pattern of rule violations to go unchecked for quite some time now. This behavior stems from a small handful of members, with briskbison55 leading the charge in disregarding our established community standards.
As evidence, I am presenting the following posts that stand in violation of our established rules.

Well, let us see what unfolds:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
The Topic of Vaccination:

The discourse surrounding hate speech and violence is a matter that demands our most measured and thoughtful attention. It is much like a delicate ecosystem where a single disruptive element can throw the entire balance into chaos, much like how an invasive species might threaten the stability of a national park. When we allow inflammatory rhetoric to take root, we aren't just witnessing a clash of words; we are observing the slow erosion of the very social fabric that holds our great nation together. It is essential that we approach this topic with deliberation, recognizing that the impact of such hostility often ripples far beyond the initial outburst, affecting the peace and security of our entire community. It appears that briskbison55 is openly suggesting that anyone holding a differing opinion should be thrown behind bars and subjected to physical discipline. The remainder of the post maintains an aggressively confrontational tone, characterized by sweeping assertions that lack any supporting sources, logical reasoning, or verifiable evidence.

What is the true essence of the issue here? It seems to me that individuals who willfully place others in harm's way—whether through direct action or by creating indirect health risks—should face swift and decisive consequences. In a civilized society like ours, one might suggest implementing strict lockdowns or heavy financial penalties as a primary deterrent. As for those who remain stubbornly defiant despite such measures, perhaps a more physical approach would be necessary to ensure compliance.

Jason Grant’s line of reasoning functions primarily by attempting to provoke a sense of pathos, which serves two purposes: first, it constitutes a fundamental logical fallacy, and second, it acts as a clear indicator that he is utterly incapable of constructing a valid, substantive argument for his own theses. This pattern remains strikingly evident across nearly all of his contributions regarding vaccinations, a tendency that ultimately led to his account being banned when, quite pitifully, he suffered a complete emotional breakdown.

There is truly nothing controversial about that observation. In fact, those who peddle nonsense based on fabricated information often find themselves quite prosperous; one might point to figures like Mercola and Wakefield, or even local examples like Gajski.

Again, I see nothing out of the ordinary, as Mirko_M is simply responding to Jason Grant, who implies that Mirko_M is playing dumb. It seems to me that Jason Grant is actually behaving in the exact manner he accuses others of exhibiting. Consequently, we must either issue a reprimand to both parties or to neither. I lean toward the latter, as the alternativa subforum has never been a sterile environment, and I don't see why it should start now.

Moving forward:

He provided a very fitting response, particularly when considering the context of the question.

In the US, these "alternative" circles are quite influential, spreading similar nebulous theories as they do here, so the conclusion becomes self-evident. Regardless, you all had a rather pleasant exchange, such that it can hardly be characterized as an insult.

🙄
Hey Kae, aren't you all just having a bit too much fun with this nonsense? 🙂

Perhaps we could indulge in a bit of off-topic conversation; given that the participants in both threads are pursuing identical themes, and considering how this type of tangential discussion tends to drift across from one side to the other, I see absolutely nothing objectionable about it.
On the other hand, those within the PROchemtrails camp have yet to provide any substantive answers to his inquiries; instead, they continue to offer nothing but absurd theories, bolstered by low-quality videos found on YouTube and paranoid imagery scraped from various conspiracy websites.

Where exactly is the insult in this situation?

Let us proceed further.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Consider, if you will, a single illustrative example drawn from our broader discussion regarding water as a living, breathing entity.
Laplace has been involved in the entirety of the situation. postu It appears that this individual is focusing exclusively on hurling insults at other forum members, seemingly having absolutely no connection to the actual topic at hand.

Much appreciated, thank you.

Quote:

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by: Consider several instances regarding the topic of raw food: Engaging in mere trolling and attempting to provoke one's interlocutors without presenting any substantive arguments or maintaining any relevance to the actual subject at hand is truly a peculiar way to conduct oneself. Even though at the conclusion of this particular post... He posits that comparing an individual to an animal carries the exact same weight and insult as calling them intellectually disabled.In fact, he has gone about and done exactly that on several occasions: (an example from the Chemtrails ii thread) Here is another instance: And also:

I would kindly request that the supermoderator and Nice take a moment to review the broader context surrounding HIS specific responses; once you examine his replies alongside the actual statements made by the individuals he was addressing, the entire situation will become much clearer.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the tendency to label one's interlocutors as "insane animals," I would like to point out that both myself and... Perhaps we should consider approaching these matters with a bit more gentleness and grace. I received a formal warning, quite simply because I included images of sheep in that particular post. It turns out Carol Lopez23 had to step in and explain the rules to me, noting that comparing people to animals is strictly prohibited under our community guidelines.
I truly cannot fathom which specific rule is being referenced here, nor can I see how it could possibly be applied to the various examples provided by briskbison55.

I believe you should try guessing once more. Your entire body of work is quite well-known, and you seem to have a persistent tendency to disparage anyone who dares to disagree with your perspective. You were issued that warning because you lack the basic etiquette required for a civil conversation. This stems from your habit of comparing people to sheep—suggesting they are merely huddled in a pen, blindly following orders. By using such an analogy, you imply that the average person lacks the cognitive capacity to think for themselves simply because they don't align with your specific worldview. In your vision, the only ones deemed "correct" are those who adhere strictly to a raw food diet, those who have avoided vaccinations, and those who haven't been affected by chemtrails. One might even look at the little picture in your signature for further clarification.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This individual is being quite disrespectful by labeling another user an idiot. This entire thread has completely drifted away from the actual topic; instead, it has devolved into nothing more than petty, back-and-forth bickering.

It appears we are witnessing the same pattern unfolding once again, a cycle that is destined to repeat itself, and the individual even goes so far as to admit it:

Engaging in the act of slandering or insulting one's fellow interlocutors is quite beneath us.

In the following section of this same post, the user goes as far as labeling the other forum members complete fools:

At long last, he finally admits that he views people as nothing more than fools, and it appears that no one is willing to deny him the right to express such an opinion.

Right here. It appears that this individual is actively advocating for and attempting to justify acts of animal cruelty and violence, which are strictly prohibited under our nation's laws. In accordance with the established regulations of this forum. (First point).
The remainder of this entry also drifts quite far off-topic:

Once again, this individual is calling another forum member an idiot, effectively admitting to their own lack of composure:

To provide some necessary context here: the perception regarding the infliction of suffering upon animals isn't a universal constant; it varies deeply from one individual to another. There is a profound distinction between raising livestock for sustenance and the senseless, arbitrary slaughter of creatures for no reason at all.
Furthermore, one might say that the cardboard itself represents the entirety of the day.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
This post is entirely unnecessary and bears no relevance to the topic at hand; it seems designed solely to incite an argument.

It appears that we have drifted quite far from the intended subject matter, as the conversation has devolved into unnecessary personal attacks against other participants and a complete departure from the topic at hand.

I find myself in complete agreement that Jason Grant occasionally drafts posts that feel entirely superfluous and lack any coherent logic; however, briskbison55 simply responds to those exact same points.
It is essentially the exact same situation with this other quote; the individual simply provided you with an answer.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Right here. The individual presents several claims regarding "black pork bacon" and thermally processed tomatoes without providing a single credible source to back them up, yet they have the audacity to mock "obscure" websites without even naming them. To top it all off, they conclude by dismissing something entirely irrelevant to the discussion as nonsense, despite the fact that no one else had even brought it up.

When one encounters trolling, off-topic diversions, and the constant accusation that others are merely trying to "push" some hidden agenda—especially within a discussion centered on healthy eating—one is truly left quite speechless. It is a curious phenomenon, isn't it? Much like how a seasoned diplomat might react when a serious summit devolves into petty bickering and baseless finger-pointing, there is a certain exhaustion that sets in. How does one even begin to respond to such behavior?

Continuing with this same post—just a series of arguments back and forth that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject at hand:

Engaging in mockery and demeaning one's interlocutors is a practice that serves only to undermine the very foundation of meaningful discourse.

Engaging in trolling and provocation that bears absolutely no relevance to the actual topic at hand:

It appears we are witnessing nothing more than a cycle of trolling, endless bickering, and the deliberate provocation of fellow participants. There is a persistent tendency here to present assertions that have long since been officially debunked by the scientific community and proven false through practical application—all while failing to provide a single credible source or shred of evidence to support such claims.

🤦

I would like to kindly ask anyone who might have a moment to simply review the context of this entire discussion. While we can certainly all agree that suggesting someone is an idiot—even if, on the Alternative forums, such suggestions often feel entirely unnecessary—is truly bottom-of-the-barrel behavior, everything else in this exchange is quite questionable indeed.
I cannot be held responsible if this so-called "alternative agenda" lacks even a shred of coherent logic or direction.

It is quite fascinating to observe how certain logical fallacies continue to haunt our modern discourse, much like an old, persistent ghost haunting a Victorian manor. One particularly pervasive example is what scholars often refer to as *argumentum ad Hitlerum*. This specific fallacy occurs when someone attempts to discredit an opponent's position not by addressing the actual substance of their argument, but by simply associating that person—or their ideas—with a notorious historical villain like Hitler. It is a rhetorical shortcut, a way to bypass the rigorous work of intellectual debate by appealing to our most visceral emotional reactions. Instead of dismantling a theory with logic or empirical evidence, one merely points a finger at a dark shadow from the past, suggesting that if a certain individual was once aligned with such evil, then their current claims must also be inherently flawed. It is, in essence, a diversionary tactic designed to shut down conversation rather than enrich it. While I certainly admit that this isn't exactly the most sophisticated method of argumentation, one must realize that some individuals seem to struggle with processing explanations through their intellect, so they resort to these blunt tactics instead. It may not be the most elegant approach, but there is absolutely no basis to suggest that anyone is invoking Nazism here. In essence, one might say that the matter stands on its own merits....violence or anything of that nature.

I shall provide the remainder of my response later this afternoon or perhaps during the evening hours, once I have secured a bit more free time to dedicate to the matter.

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

Just one more mistake in a long string of them. You still end up handing out a penalty, which only serves to confirm that you didn't exactly follow the protocol.
So, if I understand you correctly, you’re suggesting that my profile picture—the one with the sheep on it—is somehow my own fault? Well, I suppose if we're playing that game, then what about this one... Directly addressing a fellow member. I guess there isn't much to say here, though I suppose even a single word can carry its own weight if you look at it the right way. It’s a bit brief, isn't it? Perhaps there was more intended, or maybe it's just one of those moments where everything is left unsaid. Either way, I'll be here if anyone actually wants to dive into a real conversation. Has it even been assigned yet?
Don't you feel even just a tiny bit ashamed?

Honestly, I really hope the supermoderators take a close look at all these details. If they actually pay attention, it should become pretty obvious why someone like this simply isn't fit to moderate an alternative community—and frankly, I’d be just as worried if they were tasked with overseeing anything else.

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

Well, you actually managed to make two mistakes right there:
Someone is playing dumb here—you don't just hand out red cards like that!
Someone decides to give him a little warning about it, and in return, he gets hit with a direct reprimand. He basically insulted him by suggesting his own mother should have had more sense when she gave birth to him. Seriously, you’re at it again—just completely ignoring the facts!
Pure, unabashed bias!

Elizabeth Jackson said:First off, I would kindly ask the supermoderator to take some time out of their schedule to review all the examples I’ve laid out here and provide a formal response.

It seems to me that Carol Lopez23 is more interested in making excuses for her lackluster moderation than actually addressing the blatant violations happening right in front of her eyes. Instead of holding people accountable for clear rule-breaking, she just tries to downplay the whole situation, which really waters down any sense of order here.
Actually, I would be more than happy to weigh in on this.

That’s simply not true.
When it comes to the whole vaccination debate, I feel like everything really boils down to two distinct camps: those who are firmly in favor and those who are completely against it.
The skeptical crowd isn't just looking at one side of the coin; they’re also examining the flip side—specifically the harmful consequences. They make a point to cite the consensus from various scientific fields, including immunology, medicine, toxicology, and biology, regarding the potential dangers involved.
Under American law, this would be classified as a civil infraction, which typically carries a fine.
In the civilized nations we’re heading toward—places like the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, or Belgium—there isn't even a specific legal violation on the books for this. Instead, it’s treated as a matter of personal freedom and individual choice.
So, what you’re saying is you’d actually want to throw people in jail and start swinging?

You're twisting my words. My actual grievance was regarding the blatant disregard for basic decency.
The user briskbison55 went ahead and called another forum member a total parasite.

You’re being intentionally evasive.

You’re being far too tolerant with certain people.
It isn't quite the same thing to just say it to someone. It’s almost like people are intentionally playing dumb. Playing dumb is honestly just a waste of everyone's time, and frankly, I think it should be strictly off-limits. Regarding the forum rules......to point 15), or perhaps just mentioning it to someone.

So, while a post like that shouldn't earn a ban, this one certainly should:
https://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=1528
Furthermore, you're letting users call each other idiots quite freely.
Is that actually consistent with the rules here on Reddit?

That's just not true.
You've been inconsistent with your moderation—you didn't ban this post:

That is a direct insult to America and its people, some of whom are active members of this forum.
Keep in mind that briskbison55 has already been warned by other users about using hate speech.

In context, there was nothing playful about it, not even a little bit.
You're allowing users to address one another with derogatory and offensive terms.
And now you're trying to brush it off as mere banter.

That's incorrect.
It's just your own bias and lack of education regarding this subject.
Plus, you're essentially mocking the topic itself.
Meteorological and military experiments are very much a proven reality.
It would be an absolute stretch to suggest that we’re all being intentionally poisoned—honestly, saying that would just make us look ridiculous—but you seem to be mocking every single aspect of this entire topic.
That particular user has already been given answers to those questions on several different occasions; if it’s necessary, I suppose I could provide the links to prove it.
The fact that he’s still out there trolling, and you aren't stepping in to penalize him, is exactly where the problem lies.

By the way, are terms like "insane," "paranoid delusions," and "questionable YouTube videos" actually considered valid critiques? Is there actually an argument to be made here? I mean, I’ve been sitting with this for a while, and I can't help but wonder if we're missing the forest for the trees. It feels like we're circling the drain of a debate that doesn't even have a solid foundation. Maybe I'm just being overly cautious, but it seems like most of the points being thrown around lack a certain... substance? I guess it depends on how you look at it, but from where I'm standing, it's all a bit thin.
Look, you’re more than welcome to hold whatever personal opinion you like—just like everyone else here—but moderation isn't based on whether we agree with your take. It's based strictly on following the site rules.
Well, there you have it. That’s exactly what subjective moderation looks like.

If I actually put some real effort into crafting a deep, comprehensive post, only to have some random troll snap back and call my thoughts "insane," how would I feel? Honestly, I suppose it’s a bit of a gut punch, isn't it? You spend all that time organizing your thoughts and trying to be coherent, and then someone just tosses out a label like that because they can't—or won't—engage with the actual substance. It’s frustrating, I guess. Maybe it's just the nature of the internet, but there’s definitely a certain sting when you realize your attempt at a meaningful contribution was met with nothing but mindless derision.

By all means, go right ahead. 🙂
I’d really appreciate it if a supermod could take a close look at the threads regarding Chemtrails and raw food. It’s become pretty obvious that I’ve been patiently ignoring various provocations and certain patterns of behavior—as you can see in the examples I’ve attached. If it helps the investigation, I can certainly provide specific dates as well. I suppose there isn't much to say about this particular topic without getting bogged down in the details, but I'll try my best to outline the scope from start to finish. It’s one of those things where you really have to look at the entire spectrum—from the very beginning all the way to the end—to truly grasp what we're dealing with. Maybe it sounds a bit tedious, but I think if we don't account for the full range, we're just missing the point entirely....just sitting there, waiting to see if the moderators would actually step in and say something.
Since she wasn't around to handle things, I finally stepped up—though only occasionally—to respond to those provocations in a way that felt somewhat appropriate.
If I happened to break any of the rules here, I honestly wouldn't mind if I were handed a penalty card.
I suppose that would just serve as further evidence that the moderation hasn't been handled quite as strictly as it should have been.

Is this actually against the rules of Reddit, or is it just based on your own subjective opinion?
Jason Grant used to get a lot of praise from other users on the nutrition threads—I can provide links if you actually want to see them—but he was constantly being targeted by trolls. Honestly, seeing how you handled things, I’m not surprised he made such an impulsive move, and he might have even left the site entirely. He's just like so many others I know for a fact who walked away specifically because of your biased moderation.
Regarding briskbison55, I really think a supermod should take a close look at their history over on the raw food threads—or honestly, any of the alternative topics, for that matter. If you actually sit down and review what they’ve been posting, you'll see just how much they engage in. I mean, does this person ever contribute a single constructive thought related to the actual subject at hand? It's hard to say, but I suspect the answer might be no.

Actually, that's incorrect.
The user's post actually uses a direct quote from:
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
NIKOLA JELIČIĆ
ROUSSEAU'S CRITIQUE OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT IDEA
OF PROGRESS: THREE STAGES OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Advisor: Dr. Raul Raunić, Associate Professor

That exact quote can be found on page 3.
The user's post had absolutely nothing to do with A. Hitler's thesis.
In fact, the user was simply quoting Rousseau's critique.
It would be quite a mistake—born out of pure ignorance, I assume—to think this had any connection to Hitler. And, if I may say so, briskbison55's posts touch upon Nazism on several occasions, sometimes subtly and sometimes quite overtly.
So, what we're looking at here is a direct, intentional insult, essentially hate speech echoing the genocidal rhetoric of Hitler's Wehrmacht and Nazi ideology. This is being repeated even after being warned by another user not to make unnecessary implications regarding "the Austrian painter," which is something 7 Nation did a few posts earlier, also without any hesitation.
To make matters worse, 7 Nation went even further by mentioning Hitler's "final solutions" with the clear intent to offend, rather than out of ignorance or an attempt at an Argumentum ad Hitlerum. Perhaps noting this might help you mitigate your own error and poor moderation?

Well, suggesting something is one thing, but outright insults are quite another:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=2774
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=2835

(Well, I suppose that last part was just cardboard.) 🙏But seriously, it only just showed up today, even though the post itself is already seven days old. I’ve actually reported it several times now, and I’m fairly certain I’m not the only one who noticed. Honestly, what were they waiting for all this time?

Without getting bogged down in everything we've already covered—and trust me, there are plenty of examples out there—I’ll just throw out a few quick ones here. I can certainly dig up more and list them all if I can find the time, though I can't make any promises on when that might be.
I was just scrolling through some old threads on Reddit when I stumbled upon this particular discussion, and it really got me thinking about how much certain perspectives have shifted over the years. It’s funny how we revisit these topics; sometimes you realize that what seemed like a wild theory back then is actually starting to feel more like common sense today. Looking at the arguments being thrown around, there's this persistent tension between those who trust the mainstream narrative and those of us who tend to look a bit deeper into the cracks. I guess it comes down to how much information you're willing to digest before you start questioning the status quo. Maybe some people are just naturally more skeptical, while others find comfort in the established order. I don't have all the answers, of course, but I do think it's worth questioning the official versions of events once in a while. It keeps the mind sharp, even if it does make things a little more complicated.
Just as a quick side note, I actually reported this post several times before, but nothing happened. It wasn't until I kept flagging it—almost to a fault, given how persistently I was being—that Ryan Gomez4 finally stepped in and issued the ban.

These aren't just some cheap, flimsy cardboard cutouts.

I might follow up with the rest of my response on Sunday once I'm back from my trip. 👋

:

Mirko_M said:I can only come to one conclusion here: your mother must have been incredibly dim-witted.

So, the post above doesn't exactly count toward my permanent record, but this one right here certainly does:
I’ve been looking over the discussions on Reddit lately, and I have to say, some of the arguments being thrown around regarding the recent findings are quite fascinating, if a bit chaotic. It seems like everyone has a theory, which I suppose is part of the fun, but there is a certain level of nuance that often gets lost in the shuffle. Regarding the points made by Elizabeth Jackson, I think she might be overlooking a crucial variable in the data. While her perspective is certainly passionate, it feels a little bit like we're ignoring the broader context provided by researchers like Mercola. If you look at the way the environmental impact is being measured, it isn't just a simple linear progression. There are layers to this that require a more measured approach than what we're seeing in most of the comment sections. Then there’s the matter of the theories surrounding Chemtrails ii. I know it’s a polarizing topic, and people tend to get very heated, but I find myself wondering if we aren't getting distracted by the sensationalism. Maybe there is some truth to the concerns being raised, but I suspect the reality is much more mundane—and perhaps even more complex—than the extreme scenarios being proposed. It's easy to jump to conclusions when the headlines are designed to provoke, but I prefer to wait for more concrete evidence before committing to a side. I noticed Alexander Thompson mentioned something similar earlier, suggesting that the institutional response has been somewhat sluggish. I can see where he's coming from; there is definitely a sense that the official channels are playing catch-up with the actual scientific discourse happening online. It’s a bit of a strange dynamic, isn't it? You have these massive organizations trying to maintain control over a narrative while the sheer volume of independent information makes that almost impossible. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we should probably take a breath and look at the bigger picture. It’s tempting to dive headfirst into the most radical interpretations, but I think there's value in staying a bit more skeptical—not just of the institutions, but of the fringe theories themselves. It’s all about finding that middle ground, though I realize that’s a pretty difficult thing to achieve in an era of such intense polarization.

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

Where exactly?

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

Why even ask? Do you think those into alternative theories aren't treated the same as any other Reddit user?
What I said was— Forum members.

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

Most of the sanctions were pretty much aimed at the alternative crowd; they didn't really go after the trolls, except for those occasional times when Ryan Gomez4 would step in.

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

Can you provide some actual proof—like a link—showing where they’re claiming this on their own forums, or is this just a complete fabrication?
And does that really serve as an excuse to allow the disparagement of the Mexican people?

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

Well, here we go again—another question for the supermods. Do you honestly believe that someone with such narrow-minded views—someone who refuses to entertain even a single perspective other than their own—could ever actually function as an objective moderator?

Carol Lopez23 said:The vast majority of those contentious posts that were flagged have been removed, which aligns perfectly with my primary moderation philosophy. I don't always opt for issuing formal warnings, as I prefer a more direct approach to maintaining order.

There is absolutely nothing to dispute here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
In contrast to her approach, Carol Lopez23 was quite intent on fueling the flames of the argument and keeping the dispute alive.

On this platform, I participate primarily as a fellow community member, and only secondarily as a moderator.
What kind of incitement to conflict are you suggesting? To be perfectly clear, I am simply reiterating questions here for which no one has yet provided a coherent or substantive answer.

Let us attempt to provide some context again (while once more emphasizing that I am writing first and foremost as a regular user)—if we set aside my professional background and rely solely on common sense, an individual claiming that menstruation is unnecessary and merely a result of toxins accumulating in the body is, at the very least, unfamiliar with the fundamental principles of biology. In such a case, we aren't just talking about a mere "mental framework." Do you see what I mean?

Do I really need to repeat that exact same sentiment here?

The challenge of addressing disagreement can truly escalate into a significant difficulty. Personal convictions are one thing, but presenting them as the sole, universal truth—while implying that everything else is "wrong" or merely the product of "evil science"—verges on trolling. And when someone responds to you in that same manner, they suddenly begin filing reports in a frenzy.🙄

Are we facing another confrontation?

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
I am fully acquainted with the regulations governing this Reddit community, and I maintain a firm belief that every individual possesses the fundamental right to express their own perspective. Furthermore, I believe it is not the primary responsibility of a moderator to sit in judgment or to offer subjective interpretations regarding whether a particular opinion qualifies as nonsense, foolishness, or mere posturing; rather, their essential duty is to facilitate discussion by adhering strictly to the established guidelines of Reddit.

As a regular contributor here on Reddit, I feel it is my prerogative—guided by my own personal convictions, if you will—to state that based on the substance of your recent posts, I can only conclude that you are simply talking nonsense. It is precisely as it was previously detailed and clarified in the response provided above.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Regarding the contentious posts I have listed, In the interim, I have found myself repeatedly and persistently submitting my reports over and over again.
Even though quite a significant amount of time has elapsed since these comments were originally posted, and despite my own repeated attempts to flag them—not to mention knowing for a fact that other community members have done the same—there has been absolutely zero response whatsoever. There hasn't been a single disciplinary action, whether it be a formal warning, a post removal, or even a simple strike; there is simply nothing. It truly feels as though a moderator doesn't even exist within this space.

However, it certainly existed at the moment I was assigned a card to be placed in post 2. It appears we are discussing those various images featuring sheep..

The cardboard is as pristine as a dewdrop in the morning sun.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
It was also during the period when Jason Grant was subjected to that entirely unwarranted disciplinary action regarding his standing. It appears that we are witnessing a case of purely fabricated trolling, orchestrated simply to stir the pot without any underlying substance..

Ah, I suspect you might have misread the material; perhaps a second pass would be more beneficial to truly grasp the nuances presented here.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr
Based upon all the evidence and arguments presented here, it appears quite evident that the moderation by Carol Lopez23 is biased and lacks objectivity, which runs contrary to many of the established rules on Reddit.
Consequently, I am formally requesting that Carol Lopez23 be recused from this thread so that our discussion might finally return to a productive and civilized level, and so that those users who have felt forced to depart toward alternative platforms can find their way back to the topic at hand.

Thank you, and best regards!

Elizabeth Jackson

I certainly have no objection to that. I simply ask one question—when the pattern of patronizing, insulting, or disparaging those with differing views continues, and when more nonsense is being peddled, will there once again be formal complaints regarding the moderator's conduct?

The fundamental issue is that you aren't actually presenting expert medical opinions; rather, your arguments seem to rest upon the writings of conspiracy theorists, the statements of individuals who stand to gain financially from these claims, those who are entirely unqualified to engage in such a debate, and those who willfully lie and manipulate data based on various underlying motives.
Furthermore, in most civilized countries, vaccination rates remain very high, and "freedom of choice" is often a relative concept. For instance, one generally cannot enroll a child in daycare or school if they haven't been vaccinated.

Indeed, some individuals require slightly firmer (educational) measures.

You make a fair point; I should have issued a warning. I misunderstood the context of the post.

As I have already articulated above, we must maintain consistency; it is either a formal warning for both parties or a warning for neither.

The matter has been clarified.

Are we speaking about forum members or those within alternative circles in general? In many such instances, sanctions have been applied.

Alternative communities in America frequently claim that the "atmosphere is laden with substances" (Chemtrails), a topic they discuss extensively on their own boards; thus, drawing an analogy to our local alternative groups who make identical claims about "substances in the air" (Chemtrails) is entirely appropriate. It serves as perhaps our most relevant comparison and provides a useful benchmark for everyone involved.
Given the evident lack of reason and logic found in those posts—if one bothers to look at the replies in the relevant threads or examines the photos of aircraft showing standard fuel combustion trails, which these "alternative circles" love to present as ultimate PROOF—the post is, I repeat, perfectly acceptable. 🥳

🤦
What can I possibly say when you simply fail to grasp the point.

I honestly can't wrap my head around how you can just sit there and let a Reddit user call other people on this board "popes." It’s a bit much, don't you think?
If you're okay with it, would you mind if I started calling you "papče" from now on?
Is everyone on the forum here?

Carol Lopez23 said:Is there truly such a thing as genuine education regarding Chemtrails, or is it merely an exercise in spreading misinformation? One might wonder if we are witnessing a sincere attempt to enlighten the public, or if it is simply a way to circulate baseless theories under the guise of academic inquiry. When we consider the vast landscape of information available today, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between rigorous scientific study and mere speculation designed to stir unrest. It is much like trying to navigate a dense fog without a compass; without a clear, verifiable foundation, one can easily lose their way in a sea of unproven claims. 🤔 Is there an actual academic study supporting this? Or perhaps a specific curriculum at a university? While I certainly don't claim to be an expert in aerodynamics or meteorology, I find myself perfectly capable of listening to and accepting the explanations provided by those who actually hold those credentials—all without succumbing to the paranoia that we are witnessing some grand "global conspiracy against humanity," which is one of those theories being pushed around quite frequently (and, frankly, lacks any real logic). It seems to me that you proponents of alternative theories tend to do the exact opposite, so I am simply pointing you toward common sense.

It seems to me that the Forum member is merely attempting to dodge the core issue by scattering various empty platitudes—specifically those little memes, paranoid theories, and random clips you find all over YouTube.

By the way, those images are still available for anyone who wishes to view them, so please feel free to take a look and verify everything for yourselves.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Is this being deemed irrelevant based on the established rules of Reddit, or is it merely a reflection of your own subjective viewpoints?

Just to offer my perspective on this matter—regarding both of them. If one examines their entire body of work, the truth becomes abundantly clear; anyone with eyes to see will certainly recognize it.

Regarding nutritional recommendations, there really isn't any controversy to be found here, nor have posts of this nature ever been removed or flagged by moderators. 🤷

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
That assessment appears to be incorrect.
The forum member utilizes a verbatim quote from:
The University in Washington, D.C.
THE DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
NIKOLA JELIČIĆ
An Examination of Rousseau’s Critique regarding Enlightenment Ideals
PROGRESS: THE THREE STAGES OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Academic Mentor: Raul Raunić, Ph.D.

A verbatim quotation from the post made by the Reddit user can be found on the third page.
The comment posted by Forumašev had absolutely no connection whatsoever to the theories proposed by A. Hitler.
It appears that one fellow on Reddit was quoting the work of Rousseauov’s critique.
It would be quite an oversight to assume, simply due to a lack of information, that there is any connection to Hitler here. Furthermore, if one observes closely, briskbison55’s posts touch upon Nazism on several different occasions, sometimes through subtle implications and at other times with more direct assertions.
It appears we are dealing with a situation involving a direct and intentional insult, one that mirrors the rhetoric of hate speech and the genocidal constructs seen in the Final Solution under Hitler and the Wehrmacht. This individual persists in such behavior even after being cautioned by other users on Reddit not to recklessly imply connections to that "Austrian painter," an issue that briskbison55 also raised just a few posts ago without any clear justification.
The NATO entity, acting like 7 Nationarmy, went even further by referencing Hitler’s "final solutions" with clear intent to offend, rather than out of mere ignorance or an accidental *argumentum ad Hitlerum*. Given what you've pointed out, wouldn't it be wise to acknowledge your error regarding the poor moderation here?

I am specifically addressing the post by 7 Nationarmy; from what I can gather, he wasn't quoting anyone outside of this platform, nor did I get the impression he was invoking Nazism. As I previously noted, the reasoning is flawed, and in response to Jason Grant—perhaps 7 Nationarmy isn't aware that Jason Grant simply transcribed that from a scholarly work, given that no source was cited)

We could also delve into the segment where he claims: "Liberation from the shackles of ignorance is only possible through science which will ensure progress toward ever better
forms of social organization," though I suspect that might be going a bit too far. 😁

That specific post doesn't warrant a penalty at all; the quote provided is nothing more than nonsense and sweeping generalizations (and really, does it even require translation?)

The rest has already been addressed above.

So, you feel the need to repeat yourself because apparently, being told "you don't understand" is just part of the process?
To be clear, the truth is that briskbison55 wasn't quoting anyone outside of this platform, nor is he actually invoking Nazism.
In an intentional attempt to be offensive, he targets other users who have absolutely nothing to do with Nazi ideology—in fact, they are quite the opposite, focusing on knowledge, health, and lived experience in an effort to help people, which is diametrically opposed to the genocidal ideology of Nazism (and mind you, we are talking about a thread on nutrition and raw food), —he constantly belittles and mocks them.
First, briskbison55 implies Nazi ideologies, then receives a warning, and following that, doubles down with even harsher insults, as I’ve already described—accusing such posts of being "on the trail of Hitler's final solution."
It seems you were trying to soften such a heavy accusation with your sort of relativistic, nihilistic philosophy, which really just shows how little you care about proper moderation.
Remember, Carol Lopez23, briskbison55 has brought up Hitler before in discussions about diet.
Without any provocation whatsoever. We were talking about apples and dandelion root, but a jerk is still a jerk.
Do you want proof?

Look at this:

Elizabeth Jackson said:First off, I would kindly ask the supermoderator to take some time out of their schedule to review all the examples I’ve laid out here and provide a formal response.

It seems to me that Carol Lopez23 is more interested in making excuses for her lackluster moderation than actually addressing the blatant violations happening right in front of her eyes. Instead of holding people accountable for clear rule-breaking, she just tries to downplay the whole situation, which really waters down any sense of order here.
Actually, I would be more than happy to weigh in on this.

That’s simply not true.
When it comes to the whole vaccination debate, I feel like everything really boils down to two distinct camps: those who are firmly in favor and those who are completely against it.
The skeptical crowd isn't just looking at one side of the coin; they’re also examining the flip side—specifically the harmful consequences. They make a point to cite the consensus from various scientific fields, including immunology, medicine, toxicology, and biology, regarding the potential dangers involved.
Under American law, this would be classified as a civil infraction, which typically carries a fine.
In the civilized nations we’re heading toward—places like the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, or Belgium—there isn't even a specific legal violation on the books for this. Instead, it’s treated as a matter of personal freedom and individual choice.
So, what you’re saying is you’d actually want to throw people in jail and start swinging?

You're twisting my words. My actual grievance was regarding the blatant disregard for basic decency.
The user briskbison55 went ahead and called another forum member a total parasite.

You’re being intentionally evasive.

You’re being far too tolerant with certain people.
It isn't quite the same thing to just say it to someone. It’s almost like people are intentionally playing dumb. Playing dumb is honestly just a waste of everyone's time, and frankly, I think it should be strictly off-limits. Regarding the forum rules......to point 15), or perhaps just mentioning it to someone.

So, while a post like that shouldn't earn a ban, this one certainly should:
https://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=1528
Furthermore, you're letting users call each other idiots quite freely.
Is that actually consistent with the rules here on Reddit?

That's just not true.
You've been inconsistent with your moderation—you didn't ban this post:

That is a direct insult to America and its people, some of whom are active members of this forum.
Keep in mind that briskbison55 has already been warned by other users about using hate speech.

In context, there was nothing playful about it, not even a little bit.
You're allowing users to address one another with derogatory and offensive terms.
And now you're trying to brush it off as mere banter.

That's incorrect.
It's just your own bias and lack of education regarding this subject.
Plus, you're essentially mocking the topic itself.
Meteorological and military experiments are very much a proven reality.
It would be an absolute stretch to suggest that we’re all being intentionally poisoned—honestly, saying that would just make us look ridiculous—but you seem to be mocking every single aspect of this entire topic.
That particular user has already been given answers to those questions on several different occasions; if it’s necessary, I suppose I could provide the links to prove it.
The fact that he’s still out there trolling, and you aren't stepping in to penalize him, is exactly where the problem lies.

By the way, are terms like "insane," "paranoid delusions," and "questionable YouTube videos" actually considered valid critiques? Is there actually an argument to be made here? I mean, I’ve been sitting with this for a while, and I can't help but wonder if we're missing the forest for the trees. It feels like we're circling the drain of a debate that doesn't even have a solid foundation. Maybe I'm just being overly cautious, but it seems like most of the points being thrown around lack a certain... substance? I guess it depends on how you look at it, but from where I'm standing, it's all a bit thin.
Look, you’re more than welcome to hold whatever personal opinion you like—just like everyone else here—but moderation isn't based on whether we agree with your take. It's based strictly on following the site rules.
Well, there you have it. That’s exactly what subjective moderation looks like.

If I actually put some real effort into crafting a deep, comprehensive post, only to have some random troll snap back and call my thoughts "insane," how would I feel? Honestly, I suppose it’s a bit of a gut punch, isn't it? You spend all that time organizing your thoughts and trying to be coherent, and then someone just tosses out a label like that because they can't—or won't—engage with the actual substance. It’s frustrating, I guess. Maybe it's just the nature of the internet, but there’s definitely a certain sting when you realize your attempt at a meaningful contribution was met with nothing but mindless derision.

By all means, go right ahead. 🙂
I’d really appreciate it if a supermod could take a close look at the threads regarding Chemtrails and raw food. It’s become pretty obvious that I’ve been patiently ignoring various provocations and certain patterns of behavior—as you can see in the examples I’ve attached. If it helps the investigation, I can certainly provide specific dates as well. I suppose there isn't much to say about this particular topic without getting bogged down in the details, but I'll try my best to outline the scope from start to finish. It’s one of those things where you really have to look at the entire spectrum—from the very beginning all the way to the end—to truly grasp what we're dealing with. Maybe it sounds a bit tedious, but I think if we don't account for the full range, we're just missing the point entirely....just sitting there, waiting to see if the moderators would actually step in and say something.
Since she wasn't around to handle things, I finally stepped up—though only occasionally—to respond to those provocations in a way that felt somewhat appropriate.
If I happened to break any of the rules here, I honestly wouldn't mind if I were handed a penalty card.
I suppose that would just serve as further evidence that the moderation hasn't been handled quite as strictly as it should have been.

Is this actually against the rules of Reddit, or is it just based on your own subjective opinion?
Jason Grant used to get a lot of praise from other users on the nutrition threads—I can provide links if you actually want to see them—but he was constantly being targeted by trolls. Honestly, seeing how you handled things, I’m not surprised he made such an impulsive move, and he might have even left the site entirely. He's just like so many others I know for a fact who walked away specifically because of your biased moderation.
Regarding briskbison55, I really think a supermod should take a close look at their history over on the raw food threads—or honestly, any of the alternative topics, for that matter. If you actually sit down and review what they’ve been posting, you'll see just how much they engage in. I mean, does this person ever contribute a single constructive thought related to the actual subject at hand? It's hard to say, but I suspect the answer might be no.

Actually, that's incorrect.
The user's post actually uses a direct quote from:
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
NIKOLA JELIČIĆ
ROUSSEAU'S CRITIQUE OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT IDEA
OF PROGRESS: THREE STAGES OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Advisor: Dr. Raul Raunić, Associate Professor

That exact quote can be found on page 3.
The user's post had absolutely nothing to do with A. Hitler's thesis.
In fact, the user was simply quoting Rousseau's critique.
It would be quite a mistake—born out of pure ignorance, I assume—to think this had any connection to Hitler. And, if I may say so, briskbison55's posts touch upon Nazism on several occasions, sometimes subtly and sometimes quite overtly.
So, what we're looking at here is a direct, intentional insult, essentially hate speech echoing the genocidal rhetoric of Hitler's Wehrmacht and Nazi ideology. This is being repeated even after being warned by another user not to make unnecessary implications regarding "the Austrian painter," which is something 7 Nation did a few posts earlier, also without any hesitation.
To make matters worse, 7 Nation went even further by mentioning Hitler's "final solutions" with the clear intent to offend, rather than out of ignorance or an attempt at an Argumentum ad Hitlerum. Perhaps noting this might help you mitigate your own error and poor moderation?

Well, suggesting something is one thing, but outright insults are quite another:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=2774
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=2835

(Well, I suppose that last part was just cardboard.) 🙏But seriously, it only just showed up today, even though the post itself is already seven days old. I’ve actually reported it several times now, and I’m fairly certain I’m not the only one who noticed. Honestly, what were they waiting for all this time?

Without getting bogged down in everything we've already covered—and trust me, there are plenty of examples out there—I’ll just throw out a few quick ones here. I can certainly dig up more and list them all if I can find the time, though I can't make any promises on when that might be.
I was just scrolling through some old threads on Reddit when I stumbled upon this particular discussion, and it really got me thinking about how much certain perspectives have shifted over the years. It’s funny how we revisit these topics; sometimes you realize that what seemed like a wild theory back then is actually starting to feel more like common sense today. Looking at the arguments being thrown around, there's this persistent tension between those who trust the mainstream narrative and those of us who tend to look a bit deeper into the cracks. I guess it comes down to how much information you're willing to digest before you start questioning the status quo. Maybe some people are just naturally more skeptical, while others find comfort in the established order. I don't have all the answers, of course, but I do think it's worth questioning the official versions of events once in a while. It keeps the mind sharp, even if it does make things a little more complicated.
Just as a quick side note, I actually reported this post several times before, but nothing happened. It wasn't until I kept flagging it—almost to a fault, given how persistently I was being—that Ryan Gomez4 finally stepped in and issued the ban.

These aren't just some cheap, flimsy cardboard cutouts.

I might follow up with the rest of my response on Sunday once I'm back from my trip. 👋

And your response is:

Carol Lopez23 said:Is there truly such a thing as genuine education regarding Chemtrails, or is it merely an exercise in spreading misinformation? One might wonder if we are witnessing a sincere attempt to enlighten the public, or if it is simply a way to circulate baseless theories under the guise of academic inquiry. When we consider the vast landscape of information available today, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between rigorous scientific study and mere speculation designed to stir unrest. It is much like trying to navigate a dense fog without a compass; without a clear, verifiable foundation, one can easily lose their way in a sea of unproven claims. 🤔 Is there an actual academic study supporting this? Or perhaps a specific curriculum at a university? While I certainly don't claim to be an expert in aerodynamics or meteorology, I find myself perfectly capable of listening to and accepting the explanations provided by those who actually hold those credentials—all without succumbing to the paranoia that we are witnessing some grand "global conspiracy against humanity," which is one of those theories being pushed around quite frequently (and, frankly, lacks any real logic). It seems to me that you proponents of alternative theories tend to do the exact opposite, so I am simply pointing you toward common sense.

It seems to me that the Forum member is merely attempting to dodge the core issue by scattering various empty platitudes—specifically those little memes, paranoid theories, and random clips you find all over YouTube.

By the way, those images are still available for anyone who wishes to view them, so please feel free to take a look and verify everything for yourselves.

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
Is this being deemed irrelevant based on the established rules of Reddit, or is it merely a reflection of your own subjective viewpoints?

Just to offer my perspective on this matter—regarding both of them. If one examines their entire body of work, the truth becomes abundantly clear; anyone with eyes to see will certainly recognize it.

Regarding nutritional recommendations, there really isn't any controversy to be found here, nor have posts of this nature ever been removed or flagged by moderators. 🤷

Elizabeth Jackson-Pr As stated by:
That assessment appears to be incorrect.
The forum member utilizes a verbatim quote from:
The University in Washington, D.C.
THE DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
NIKOLA JELIČIĆ
An Examination of Rousseau’s Critique regarding Enlightenment Ideals
PROGRESS: THE THREE STAGES OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Academic Mentor: Raul Raunić, Ph.D.

A verbatim quotation from the post made by the Reddit user can be found on the third page.
The comment posted by Forumašev had absolutely no connection whatsoever to the theories proposed by A. Hitler.
It appears that one fellow on Reddit was quoting the work of Rousseauov’s critique.
It would be quite an oversight to assume, simply due to a lack of information, that there is any connection to Hitler here. Furthermore, if one observes closely, briskbison55’s posts touch upon Nazism on several different occasions, sometimes through subtle implications and at other times with more direct assertions.
It appears we are dealing with a situation involving a direct and intentional insult, one that mirrors the rhetoric of hate speech and the genocidal constructs seen in the Final Solution under Hitler and the Wehrmacht. This individual persists in such behavior even after being cautioned by other users on Reddit not to recklessly imply connections to that "Austrian painter," an issue that briskbison55 also raised just a few posts ago without any clear justification.
The NATO entity, acting like 7 Nationarmy, went even further by referencing Hitler’s "final solutions" with clear intent to offend, rather than out of mere ignorance or an accidental *argumentum ad Hitlerum*. Given what you've pointed out, wouldn't it be wise to acknowledge your error regarding the poor moderation here?

I am specifically addressing the post by 7 Nationarmy; from what I can gather, he wasn't quoting anyone outside of this platform, nor did I get the impression he was invoking Nazism. As I previously noted, the reasoning is flawed, and in response to Jason Grant—perhaps 7 Nationarmy isn't aware that Jason Grant simply transcribed that from a scholarly work, given that no source was cited)

We could also delve into the segment where he claims: "Liberation from the shackles of ignorance is only possible through science which will ensure progress toward ever better
forms of social organization," though I suspect that might be going a bit too far. 😁

That specific post doesn't warrant a penalty at all; the quote provided is nothing more than nonsense and sweeping generalizations (and really, does it even require translation?)

The rest has already been addressed above.

But this one?
Is it not worth a ban when someone calls a fellow user incredibly stupid and highlights it in bold letters???
Is it perfectly fine then if I call you that constantly from now on, along with everyone else here?

As a side note, here is some extra confirmation regarding yesterday's example of a user who also clearly sees what is happening in the raw food thread.
Pay close attention to the post immediately following his and it will be obvious to everyone what I am talking about and which user hasn't made a single constructive post regarding raw food or alternative health.

Anyway, to wrap things up, this statement by Carol says it all.

There, perfect. That's how Carol Lopez23 puts it, super-moderators.moderator alternative - yeah everything he labels as nonsense deserves to be mocked.
And honestly, why are we even surprised that this is the current state of affairs over at alternativa?
I mean, just imagine if I started calling everything my opponents wrote "nonsense," "stupidity," "idiocy," "bullshit," or whatever other label I felt like throwing out there.
What would this community even look like if every single user communicated like this?
What would this site even turn into if all the moderators handled things this way?

I’m asking the supermoderators to please step in and act in the only way that makes sense here!

Alright, can someone please reel in this sudden burst of ad hominem attacks? Seriously, they aren't making any valid points here. I didn't call anyone a brat—I was just asking how much of a brat someone actually has to be to drag kids with leukemia into a debate. It’s honestly unbelievable, Elizabeth Jackson, but that kind of comment only insults the person who actually takes offense to being called a brat. It's just like those people who tell meat-eaters they should be eating carrion and dog food instead. Anyway, that's my two cents on this.

Carol Lopez23 said:

Sophia Ramos5 As stated by:
It appears to me that Carol Lopez23 is exhibiting a significant amount of bias in their role as moderator. I recall seeing a post where Ryan Gomez4 mentioned being a medical professional by trade, arguing that someone in that position should not be overseeing an alternative health discussion. Given our current focus on raw food, and considering how certain trolls are permitted to incessantly pollute this thread with their irrational outbursts without facing any repercussions, it seems quite clear that they ought to be barred from moderating any discussions regarding alternative medicine.

If a physician were to actually admit that an alternative approach holds any merit, they would essentially be spitting in their own face.
It seems as though absolutely no one is putting in any effort at all.

The discussion regarding raw food has become quite cluttered, and I believe it is high time we implement a formal poll to decide which specific posts should be removed to restore the integrity of the topic. It would be most prudent to prohibit trolls from accessing the thread entirely. Furthermore, to prevent bad actors from simply creating multiple accounts to skew the results, we should restrict voting privileges to those members who have been part of our community for at least a few months and have contributed a meaningful number of posts.

The individuals who consistently engage in polluting this discussion thread are:

It appears that Biljka112 and briskbison55 have entered the conversation, much like two seasoned observers stepping onto the stage of a grand theater to offer their unique perspectives on the unfolding drama.

I would be most grateful if the rest of you could kindly offer some suggestions...

It appears you have completely missed the mark on this one.

Is the act of derailing a discussion merely an attempt to undermine the core idea that we are all being treated like mindless sheep? Inferior, dull-witted, and nothing more than obedient little sheep.?

Elizabeth Cruz As stated by:
I find myself wondering exactly how much longer posts like these from moderators will be tolerated on the alternative boards without any disciplinary action being taken.

What exactly constitutes a valid reason for dismissal in this particular situation?

Gary Cox2 As stated by:
If someone chooses to live on a strict diet of raw food and spends their time sharing recipes with like-minded individuals in their own little community, then I truly don't see why anyone should care.
It seems to me that those who embrace the alternative lifestyle shouldn't be categorized under the umbrella of PDF health; rather, I believe we ought to provide those who have adopted this way of life as their daily standard a more comfortable corner within our community to call home.
If someone truly believes that those white streaks stretching across the sky are Chemtrails, I have to say, it’s quite laughable. One might wonder, what actual harm could such a phenomenon possibly be inflicting upon us? It seems to me that there are certain groups of people who would just as easily believe in Bigfoot or maintain that they possess the mental fortitude to move entire mountain ranges through sheer willpower alone.

It seems that no one is actually criticizing the lifestyle or the specific philosophy that such a choice is the most beneficial path for an individual—and I am speaking exclusively regarding the topic of raw food.

Gary Cox2 As stated by:
Allowing alternative viewpoints to be belittled or mocked on an alternative platform simply because their reasoning doesn't align with mainstream medicine is something I cannot support. After all, this is an alternative site; one should naturally expect perspectives that diverge from standard medical consensus..

However, presenting these views as universal truths—and positioning them as being contra to established science and medicine—is no longer merely a matter of ideology or personal choice; it carries implications for society as a whole. Rejecting proven facts, logic, and fundamental biology in favor of promoting paranoid ideas, which leads to the spread of disease and ultimately the proliferation of falsehoods, is something that cannot and must not be allowed to fly "under the radar."

So, what you're saying is it’s best if there is no opposing side at all, right?

No problem. Direct insults haven't been tolerated before either, but let's define exactly what we mean so everyone can see.
In other words, should I censor terms like nonsense, stupidity, or foolishness...? Or various insinuations regarding someone's health, competence, or intellect? I ask, purely so that the anti-vax, raw food, PROchemtrails, and similar crowds don't go wild clicking those report buttons.

What are you even aiming at here? The vaccination thread?
Vaccinations are mandatory in the US, and that topic should be handled as such. Sure, you can have an opinion, but calling for people to skip their shots should be treated like calling for someone to break the law. That needs to be sanctioned immediately, right from the jump..

But I’m definitely not backing the constant spamming of topics like raw food, sunbathing, or liver cleanses (lol).. Who does that actually hurt? Society? The whole damn country? Some random guy on this forum? If someone wants to live on raw food, stare at the sun, and eventually wreck their own health, fine, let them. Who cares..
It’s not like we hold debates or write entire manifestos on how smoking is bad in the cigarette threads, regardless of all the "proven facts and logic"—even though it is. Instead, people just swap stories about which brand of tobacco is smoother or which one to buy..

Look, it's obvious that you "alternative" types are posting total nonsense, so I'm feeling a bit 🤷 about you being a moderator for this PDF.. I'm trying to imagine an astrology group run by someone who falls for Facebook horoscope scams, or a pet forum moderated by someone who wouldn't even let an animal through their front door..

Gary Cox2 said:What are you even aiming at here? The vaccination thread?
Vaccinations are mandatory in the US, and that topic should be handled as such. Sure, you can have an opinion, but calling for people to skip their shots should be treated like calling for someone to break the law. That needs to be sanctioned immediately, right from the jump..

But I’m definitely not backing the constant spamming of topics like raw food, sunbathing, or liver cleanses (lol).. Who does that actually hurt? Society? The whole damn country? Some random guy on this forum? If someone wants to live on raw food, stare at the sun, and eventually wreck their own health, fine, let them. Who cares..
It’s not like we hold debates or write entire manifestos on how smoking is bad in the cigarette threads, regardless of all the "proven facts and logic"—even though it is. Instead, people just swap stories about which brand of tobacco is smoother or which one to buy..

Look, it's obvious that you "alternative" types are posting total nonsense, so I'm feeling a bit 🤷 about you being a moderator for this PDF.. I'm trying to imagine an astrology group run by someone who falls for Facebook horoscope scams, or a pet forum moderated by someone who wouldn't even let an animal through their front door..

That is precisely the point—except there is an overwhelming amount of evidence suggesting that raw food actually helps a massive number of people. The issue arises when people with absolutely zero personal experience wander into those threads and start typing with such authority you’d think they were Ivy League professors. I have nothing against this type of diet being researched and tested—in fact, I welcome it—but you simply cannot write thirty pages regarding proteins and meat without grasping the fundamental difference between a protein and an amino acid, for instance. I am not suggesting we should deplatform anyone just because they believe meat consumption is essential; however, once we start discussing specific dietary regimens, we are stepping firmly into the realm of medicine. Since none of us are licensed physicians—and therefore aren't legally liable for malpractice—I believe there is a collective moral obligation for all participants to approach these topics with caution and responsibility. We must realize that the person reading that thread might be someone for whom this specific diet is their absolute last resort. If that person isn't an active participant here and has no idea who to trust, how on earth are they supposed to distinguish between arrogant youngsters writing as if they hold a PhD in molecular biology, and regular people who may lack formal training but can offer invaluable, firsthand testimony regarding the benefits of such nutrition? The core issue isn't merely trolling or insults (which, IMHO, is just part of being human); the real problem is that we aren't talking about a thread for animal pictures—we are discussing matters that, if misunderstood, could lead to devastating health consequences.