Another thread closed regarding the coronavirus pdf

Ego just nuked another thread on the coronavirus sub (specifically the one asking why the government establishment is pushing vaccines so hard). At least he’s being honest about it now.
The reason they gave for closing it:

"I don't feel like moderating another conspiracy theory thread"

Isn't it just ridiculous to frame it like that? 🤦
If you aren't up for the job, let someone else handle the moderation. 😵
Honestly, if you can't stay neutral, you should probably step down from the mod team for the coronavirus section entirely, because clearly your personal biases are clouding your judgment.
Total disgrace!!

Hold on we already have a dedicated thread for conspiracy theories, even though there’s already an omnibus thread covering them all in the same pdf...

What kind of subject could possibly merit its own dedicated thread without already being thoroughly dissected by the endless rabbit holes of conspiracy theories?
I am not asking this for my own sake, but rather for yours; if you can actually provide an answer, perhaps then you will finally grasp why the topic was locked in the first place.

By the way, I couldn't help but notice that this marks your seventh consecutive attempt to complain about moderation within this coronavirus pdf in less than two months.
It is a pattern, nothing more, nothing less. 🥳

sorry Morgan Peterson, since we’re on the subject, why the hell are you banning terms like "vaxxer" or "antivaxxer" under threat of getting banned? These aren't even fringe words—they're used constantly by basically every major news outlet in the country,
like CNN
https://www.cnn.com/example-article...
or Fox News
https://foxnews.com/example-story...
even in an op-ed on the New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/example-column...
or USA Today
https://www.usatoday.com/example-news...
....
?

I mean, honestly, you guys have already labeled us all as crazy anyway. You've basically made it so critical thinking is only allowed in those weird conspiracy theory threads, so now anyone who doesn't blindly follow the CDC or whatever global authority they've picked this week has to hang out with people who think 5G is spying on them from every street corner? Seriously, how much longer are you gonna keep looking down on anyone who isn't just echoing the mainstream narrative?

Morgan Peterson said:What else is there to talk about in a dedicated thread if it hasn't already been covered by conspiracy theories?
The question isn't for me, it's for you—and honestly, if you can actually answer it, you'll realize why the thread had to be locked.

By the way, this is the seventh time in less than two months that you've complained about moderation on the coronavirus pdf.
Just an observation. 🥳

Look, this specific thread is literally titled "Why is the government establishment pushing vaccinations?"
Then there’s another thread called "Searching for reasons vs. conspiracy theories."
As far as I can see, those are two completely different topics.
If someone went off-topic, the move should have been to move the post or give a warning, not just shut the whole thing down with some "I don't feel like moderating this..." excuse.

And yeah, I'm complaining because the moderation on the coronavirus pdf is totally biased.
The admin has their own personal baggage that makes being objective impossible, and unfortunately, that spills over into how things are moderated... I don't think that's right, so I'm calling it out.
Am I allowed to do that? 🤔

Samuel Turner2 said:Look, the title of this thread is "Why is the government establishment pushing vaccinations?"
There’s already a separate thread titled "The Search for Reasons vs. Conspiracy Theories."
As far as I can tell, those are two distinct conversations.
If someone drifted off-topic, the solution was to move the post or issue a warning—not to shut down the whole discussion just because a moderator decided they couldn't be bothered to moderate...

How are they separate? Just take a look at some of the options in the poll:

a global conspiracy with an even more sinister endgame

splitting the profits from vaccine sales with Big Pharma

What exactly do you call that if not a conspiracy theory?

wearybison63 said:How are those even two separate topics? Just look at some of these poll options:

a massive global conspiracy with an even more sinister endgame

splitting up the profits from vaccine sales with big pharma companies

I mean, if that isn't a straight-up conspiracy theory, I don't know what is.

Your logic is totally flawed...
As far as I'm concerned, those are two distinct issues that have been floating around for a while now (it's not like the thread was nuked the second it was posted). Honestly, the mods should be deleting irrelevant posts or giving people a warning for going off-topic, instead of just force-closing everything left and right.

Carl Wilson said:Morgan Peterson, if I may pivot slightly to this topic—why exactly are you banning terms like "vaxxer" or "antivaxxer" under the threat of being banned yourself? These aren't some fringe slang words invented in a basement; they are part of the standard lexicon used by every major news outlet and mainstream media organization across the country. If the biggest networks in America are using them daily, why is it suddenly a violation here?
Is it not curious how certain digital monoliths seem to command the entire landscape of our national discourse? I find myself frequently glancing toward sites like CNN or even the more populist corners of Reddit, wondering if we are truly engaging with the news or merely reacting to the loudest echoes in the room.

Is it not curious how certain digital portals attempt to command our attention? I find myself pondering the sheer ubiquity of sites like CNN or Yahoo!—those massive, sprawling news aggregators that seem to insist on being everywhere at once. One cannot help but wonder if such constant, relentless information flow truly serves the public interest, or if it merely creates a frantic sort of digital noise that drowns out actual contemplation. Does anyone else feel this peculiar sense of exhaustion when navigating these monolithic media hubs?
I find myself once again staring at the headlines, wondering if we have collectively decided to ignore the blatant absurdity unfolding right before our eyes. Is it truly possible that the sheer scale of this legislative overhaul—this sweeping attempt to reshape our entire regulatory landscape—is being met with such a muted reaction from the public? One would think that an adjustment of this magnitude, impacting everything from local commerce to the very fabric of our civic engagement, would spark a firestorm of debate in every coffee shop from Seattle to Miami. Yet, here we are. We watch as these policy shifts are pushed through with a calculated, almost surgical precision, leaving us to wonder: who exactly is this designed to benefit? Is it the average citizen, struggling to navigate the complexities of modern life, or is it merely another layer of bureaucracy intended to serve the interests of those already entrenched in power? It feels less like progress and more like a slow, methodical tightening of the reins. The implications are vast, stretching far beyond the immediate ink on the page. When we allow such fundamental changes to occur without vigorous scrutiny, aren't we essentially handing over the keys to our own autonomy? I cannot help but feel a sense of profound skepticism. Are we witnessing a necessary evolution of our legal framework, or are we simply watching the quiet erosion of the standards we once held dear? One can only hope that the voices of reason will eventually rise to meet this challenge, though, looking at the current climate, I find my optimism waning.
Take, for instance, a column you might stumble upon in the New York Post.
Where exactly did this whole thing begin? It is the question that seems to haunt every dinner table conversation from Maine to California, isn't it? We find ourselves staring at the endless, swirling vortex of the internet, searching for a single, definitive answer that remains perpetually out of reach. The discourse surrounding the origins of the coronavirus has become a labyrinthine struggle between scientific inquiry and political theater. One moment, we are told the virus emerged through a natural leap from animals to humans in a bustling marketplace; the next, the whispers of a laboratory mishap grow loud enough to drown out any sense of certainty. Is it possible that we are looking for simplicity in a world defined by complexity? Or are we simply unwilling to accept that the truth might be far more uncomfortable than the theories we cling to? It feels as though every time a new study is released, the goalposts are moved just an inch further away. We watch as experts debate, clash, and occasionally agree, yet the public is left wandering through a fog of conflicting reports and half-truths. Can we ever truly achieve a consensus when the very foundations of our evidence are under constant scrutiny? It makes one wonder if the search for the "smoking gun" is even productive, or if we are merely chasing shadows in an attempt to make sense of a global catastrophe that defied all our expectations.
Take, for instance, the New York Times.
Is it truly possible that we have reached such a precipice? I find myself staring at the latest reports regarding the escalating tensions between the United States and various international actors, and I am left wondering if anyone in Washington actually possesses a grasp on the sheer volatility of our current geopolitical landscape. We see these headlines—shifting alliances, sudden economic sanctions, and the constant, low-frequency hum of diplomatic friction—and we are expected to simply nod and carry on with our lives as if the ground beneath us isn't subtly shifting. The recent developments involving these high-stakes negotiations feel less like calculated diplomacy and more like a frantic attempt to plug leaks in a sinking ship. Are we witnessing the slow erosion of established international norms, or is this merely the inevitable friction that occurs when global powers collide in an increasingly multipolar world? It seems we are perpetually caught in this cycle of crisis and response, yet the "response" phase always feels reactionary, lacking the foresight required to prevent the next inevitable tremor. One cannot help but observe the rhetoric coming out of the major policy institutes and think: how many times can we rearrange the deck chairs before the ocean decides it has had enough? There is a certain exhaustion that settles in when you realize that the grand strategies being discussed in the halls of power often seem disconnected from the granular reality of how these decisions impact the average citizen. Is there a coherent vision guiding us through this turbulence, or are we simply drifting, guided by the winds of political expediency and short-term interests? It is a question that remains, as always, hauntingly unanswered.
....
?

So, you have already gone ahead and branded us all as lunatics, haven't you? You’ve effectively cordoned off any critical discourse, relegating it to those niche threads dedicated solely to conspiracy theories. Now, am I to understand that anyone who dares to question the official directives from the high command—both our own domestic leadership and the global powers they follow—must be lumped in with the fringe crowd who sees a 5G conspiracy lurking behind every streetlamp? How much longer do you intend to humiliate those of us who refuse to blindly bow to the mainstream narrative?

We certainly could have settled this matter elsewhere, but I suppose we shall proceed here. To be clear, I haven’t issued any arbitrary bans; rather, we reached a mutual agreement—prompted by the moderators—that labeling large groups of people with such wildly inaccurate qualifications would result in formal warnings. Our sole objective is to preserve the possibility of a civilized discussion. Is it not true that one can harbor skepticism toward the COVID vaccines without necessarily being opposed to all other forms of immunization? Similarly, can we not acknowledge that those who support the COVID shots may not hold identical views on standard childhood vaccinations? There are countless nuances regarding how one perceives the pandemic and various diseases, and as long as these perspectives are communicated with a modicum of decency, a meaningful dialogue remains entirely sustainable.

If your primary grievance is that you can no longer go around labeling your interlocutors as "shills" or "paid trolls" without consequence, I feel compelled to point out that such behavior was never permissible to begin with. However, we have reached a point where those who questioned the COVID-19 vaccines have finally received some semblance of vindication; they are no longer being reflexively branded as "antivaxxers" by default. Given that shift, I find myself wondering—quite genuinely—why this remains such a significant sticking point for you?

Why is everyone so obsessed with banning the term "anti-vaxxer"?🤷

Are we really just trying to coddle such an aggressive minority?🍿

neonpuma30 said:Why on earth is the term "anti-vaxxer" being banned?🤷

Are we truly expected to cater to such an aggressive minority?🍿

🙄
She’s already churned out about ten posts on this exact subject. Honestly, I don't have the energy to go back at it again. If you really want to understand the nuance, why not just pick up a search engine and do some digging? It might actually provide you with some much-needed clarity. ☕

Samuel Turner2 said:Another thread closed...

What a joke.☕
They love shutting down threads as much as anyone else (not my own threads, mind you, just the ones I actually enjoy reading).

Except in my case, we aren't talking about some random discussion floating around a coronavirus pdf; these topics are posted right here—in the heart of the Reddit headquarters...

Anyway, you aren't the only one dealing with this.

The worst part is when I take the time to write an actually constructive post for the good of the community, hit 'submit'... only to be met with "Sorry verimuch, but that thread doesn't exist!"

P.S.
(👍 alright, this time everything is exactly how it should be and ALWAYS should be)

Morgan Peterson said:We could have handled this in a different thread, but fine. Look, I didn't ban anything out of nowhere—we just collectively agreed, at the mods' suggestion, to start handing out warnings for labeling huge groups of people with totally inaccurate labels, all just to keep the discussion from turning into a total circus. The thing is, not everyone who’s skeptical about the coronavirus vaccine is against all vaccines, and obviously, not everyone pro-coronavirus vaccine is pro-everything else either. There are tons of nuances in how people view the crisis and these illnesses, and as long as people are being decent about how they communicate, we can definitely keep talking.

If your issue is that you won't be able to call people "shills" or "paid trolls" without getting flagged anymore... man, let me remind you that wasn't allowed before either. Plus, now even the folks skeptical of the coronavirus vaccine got their win since they aren't being lumped in with "antivaxxers," so I honestly don't get why you're making such a big deal out of this.

I mean, personally? I’d much rather someone calls me an idiot, a moron, an antivaxxer, or even a bioterrorist, if it means I actually get to call a shill a shill. 😁

sorry Aleta if I should've just asked this in another thread, I just saw your post here and figured it wouldn't hurt 🙂. I came to you because you're the one who posted the notices on the thread, so it's clearly a group decision.

Look, I don't go around insulting people, but honestly, I really don't care what anyone writes to me. My take? You shouldn't be banning or flagging terms that are basically part of everyday American slang and mainstream talk. That's just it. This way, it feels like some journalist who's forced to maintain a certain level of decorum and objectivity has more freedom to speak their mind than the actual users on this forum, which... yeah, shouldn't be happening.

A journalist can write an article without being responsible for moderating the absolute zoo happening in the comments section underneath it 😁

Sure, there are plenty of times when "labeling" someone isn't meant as an insult, a fight starter, or just straight-up trolling. But more often than not, it’s exactly that—it just leads to these pointless, exhausting little verbal boxing matches.

P.S. if anyone calls me a Republican, honestly, I'd take being called an idiot over that any day 😉

Gerald Chavez7 said:Sure, a journalist can pen an article all they want, but that doesn't mean they're obligated to police the absolute circus happening in the comments section right beneath it. 😁

Of course, there are plenty of instances where "labeling" someone isn't intended as a slur, a provocation, or mere trolling. But more often than not, isn't it? And doesn't it almost always just lead to these pointless, exhausting little shadowboxing matches?

P.S. Honestly, if someone calls me a Republican, I’d take being called an idiot any day of the week. 😉

👍

The coronavirus pdf is strictly for stuff like this—just find an alternative and go at it.

Samuel Turner2 said:Ego just shut down yet another thread in the Pandemic section (specifically asking why the federal government is pushing vaccinations so hard). At least he was being honest about it.
The reason given for closing it:

I don't feel like moderating yet another conspiracy theory thread

Isn't it just ridiculous to phrase it like that? 🤦
If you aren't feeling up to it, then let someone else handle the moderation. 😵
Honestly, if you can't stay neutral, maybe you should step down from moderating the pandemic section altogether, because it's pretty clear your personal biases are getting in the way of staying objective.
Seriously, what a joke!!

It’s not a disgrace, but he really should have worded it better—something like, "I'd prefer not to moderate another thread centered on conspiracy theories," and he would have been completely justified. Please, I'm asking you all, just don't start these kinds of threads in the Coronavirus subforum.