Ministry of Truth

boldwalker12 said:Don't try to twist my words. When I say "yours," I'm not talking about believers in general; I'm talking strictly about you and those posts of yours that have popped up on my radar a few times now.

But again, that's just your opinion, offered without any actual reasoning (and let’s be real, we haven't even actually debated anything before now—NO). So, it could just be some kind of projection or whatever...

I'm not interested in all that. If you aren't going to answer the questions regarding this topic, then that's that, I guess.

Best,

William Bennett53 said:Had the debate remained spirited yet civil, there would have been no need for intervention.

But let’s go back to basics.
A significant portion of a moderator's duty on this forum involves establishing a framework that allows for arguments to be heated yet respectful. When we succeed in that, the discussions are exceptional; when we fail, threads quickly alienate most users and become magnets for nothing but radical trolls. If you follow our community guidelines, you know that based on our Politics subforum, we've seen this pattern play out repeatedly in various threads regarding the War in Ukraine. We are still grappling with the complexities of the War in Ukraine, as we all know, but fortunately, this hasn't happened in the abortion thread—it’s working fine for now.

Setting a framework means establishing a set of constraints within which a discussion must take place if it is to remain viable at all. On the Politics subforum, we concluded that this would include prohibiting diversions into talk of killings and murders, because such an approach dismantles any attempt to discuss a problem that is normative in nature and, by its very essence, incredibly complex. This certainly doesn't mean that certain terminology is banned simply because my colleague Bubi Mir and I hold opposing views. The best proof of this is that Bubi Mir is a moderator, while I serve as a supermoderator for the Religion subforum, where expressing a stance on abortion as a form of killing is considered an acceptable part of the discourse. However, on Religion, we don't operate under the assumption that a discussion must center on the normative basis of an issue; rather, it serves as a venue for clashing worldviews, and the discussions naturally follow that path.

So, to conclude, steering a discussion isn't about silencing one side; it is about facilitating a conversation in a direction that is more meaningful and necessary within the specific context of that subforum. For those interested in debating different worldviews, users are more than welcome to join the conversation over in Religion.

And you're just as much of a neural network—or a "supermodel," as you like to put it. Politics, too.

You think you're untouchable? Just wait until your luck runs out.😁

Or perhaps it would be better to balance things out by adding a moderator with a different political perspective? It might be worth having at least one conservative moderator on the team.😉

Well, that's it then. One. Maybe everyone would be a little happier if there were some actual balance in how the moderators handle their decisions and viewpoints. lol

William Bennett53 said:I'm currently waiting on some guests, so I won't be able to jump into a conversation right now. 😵
However, let me be clear: we aren't going to be debating abortion issues here; our focus remains strictly on moderation.

Fine, but I had to bring up the "ending a living being's life" vs. "killing" comparison just to make my point clear.

Moderators need to be way more careful and objective when they use their discretion to restrict or steer conversations. Claiming that the site rules ban standard, legitimate pro-life political discourse is basically just a subtle form of political correctness.

I might buy that if this were standard political moderation, but it isn't.
Take the term "catholiban"—it’s offensive and crude, yet the moderators let it slide constantly. So much for being politically correct.
And according to the forum rules, labeling people like that is actually prohibited.

"Killing a fetus" is intense language, sure, but it's legitimate, backed by logic and links, and accurately represents the pro-life side. If a moderator wants to use their discretion to ban it, they should at least provide a real argument.

Susan Price30 said:And you're just as much of a neural network—or a "supermodel," as you like to put it. Politics, too.

You think you're untouchable? Just wait until your luck runs out.😁

Or perhaps it would be better to balance things out by adding a moderator with a different political perspective? It might be worth having at least one conservative moderator on the team.😉

Well, that's it then. One. Maybe everyone would be a little happier if there were some actual balance in how the moderators handle their decisions and viewpoints. lol

We don't need left-wing or right-wing moderators. We've tried that approach here for years and it hasn't worked.

What we actually need are moderators who know what they're doing and can set their personal convictions aside while they work.

Some of them jumped straight to attacking what I wrote here using their own twisted logic. To me, that's a bad sign. It shows they aren't capable of staying neutral or working without bias.

They might feel like they're on the right side of history, thinking that backing certain ideas serves everyone—themselves, the users, and the forum—but that's not true. They're just serving this new modern ideology, and any ideology like that struggles to tolerate freedom of thought and expression.

So, my advice? Put aside the "political correctness," park your personal views, and aim to be as neutral as possible. You'll do a much better job, believe me.

William Bennett53 said:Had the debate remained spirited yet civil, there would have been no need for intervention.

But let’s go back to basics.
A significant portion of a moderator's duty on this forum involves establishing a framework that allows for arguments to be heated yet respectful. When we succeed in that, the discussions are exceptional; when we fail, threads quickly alienate most users and become magnets for nothing but radical trolls. If you follow our community guidelines, you know that based on our Politics subforum, we've seen this pattern play out repeatedly in various threads regarding the War in Ukraine. We are still grappling with the complexities of the War in Ukraine, as we all know, but fortunately, this hasn't happened in the abortion thread—it’s working fine for now.

Setting a framework means establishing a set of constraints within which a discussion must take place if it is to remain viable at all. On the Politics subforum, we concluded that this would include prohibiting diversions into talk of killings and murders, because such an approach dismantles any attempt to discuss a problem that is normative in nature and, by its very essence, incredibly complex. This certainly doesn't mean that certain terminology is banned simply because my colleague Bubi Mir and I hold opposing views. The best proof of this is that Bubi Mir is a moderator, while I serve as a supermoderator for the Religion subforum, where expressing a stance on abortion as a form of killing is considered an acceptable part of the discourse. However, on Religion, we don't operate under the assumption that a discussion must center on the normative basis of an issue; rather, it serves as a venue for clashing worldviews, and the discussions naturally follow that path.

So, to conclude, steering a discussion isn't about silencing one side; it is about facilitating a conversation in a direction that is more meaningful and necessary within the specific context of that subforum. For those interested in debating different worldviews, users are more than welcome to join the conversation over in Religion.

Why do you keep pushing me toward a religious PDF when this is clearly a matter of politics?
Shifting social norms, changing laws, recognizing the moral weight of a fetus—these are political issues, not just religious ones.

You claim you aren't silencing anyone, yet you admit you're forcing the debate toward whatever you personally deem "sensible." You realize those two things are exactly the same thing, right?

mistyseal8 said:We don't need left-wing or right-wing moderators. We've tried that approach here for years and it hasn't worked.

What we actually need are moderators who know what they're doing and can set their personal convictions aside while they work.

Some of them jumped straight to attacking what I wrote here using their own twisted logic. To me, that's a bad sign. It shows they aren't capable of staying neutral or working without bias.

They might feel like they're on the right side of history, thinking that backing certain ideas serves everyone—themselves, the users, and the forum—but that's not true. They're just serving this new modern ideology, and any ideology like that struggles to tolerate freedom of thought and expression.

So, my advice? Put aside the "political correctness," park your personal views, and aim to be as neutral as possible. You'll do a much better job, believe me.

We should clone Power Locko a few times. 🤣
I don't agree with everything he says, but his moderation sense is solid. He deserves a 🙏 and could serve as a model for everyone else.

William Bennett53 said:Had the debate remained spirited yet civil, there would have been no need for intervention.

But let’s go back to basics.
A significant portion of a moderator's duty on this forum involves establishing a framework that allows for arguments to be heated yet respectful. When we succeed in that, the discussions are exceptional; when we fail, threads quickly alienate most users and become magnets for nothing but radical trolls. If you follow our community guidelines, you know that based on our Politics subforum, we've seen this pattern play out repeatedly in various threads regarding the War in Ukraine. We are still grappling with the complexities of the War in Ukraine, as we all know, but fortunately, this hasn't happened in the abortion thread—it’s working fine for now.

Setting a framework means establishing a set of constraints within which a discussion must take place if it is to remain viable at all. On the Politics subforum, we concluded that this would include prohibiting diversions into talk of killings and murders, because such an approach dismantles any attempt to discuss a problem that is normative in nature and, by its very essence, incredibly complex. This certainly doesn't mean that certain terminology is banned simply because my colleague Bubi Mir and I hold opposing views. The best proof of this is that Bubi Mir is a moderator, while I serve as a supermoderator for the Religion subforum, where expressing a stance on abortion as a form of killing is considered an acceptable part of the discourse. However, on Religion, we don't operate under the assumption that a discussion must center on the normative basis of an issue; rather, it serves as a venue for clashing worldviews, and the discussions naturally follow that path.

So, to conclude, steering a discussion isn't about silencing one side; it is about facilitating a conversation in a direction that is more meaningful and necessary within the specific context of that subforum. For those interested in debating different worldviews, users are more than welcome to join the conversation over in Religion.

Let’s be honest: you allow everything here, even when it directly violates the very rules you established.
This topic is incredibly sensitive. We need to set an extremely high bar for what qualifies as a valid excuse for these cards—not just when it comes to political discourse, but when religion enters the conversation on these forums.
The terminology used in any debate ought to be precise, accurate, and backed by solid argumentation.
The only distinction between those two PDFs should be that the section on religion allows for a worldview perspective, provided it isn't presented as a definitive claim.
And you all have it completely backwards.

On the Religion board, nobody actually expects a debate to center on the normative foundations of an issue. Instead, people primarily just clash over conflicting worldviews, so the entire discussion naturally follows that same path.
With a global perspective in mind, forum members are free to join the discussion on Religion.

Of course. You only ever flag the people who actually present facts and use them as arguments, while you treat the moderators—who just scribble down their own ideological biases—as the ultimate authority. When I think about it, I suppose that’s exactly what they are.
Look, there’s simply no room for a worldview here unless you hold a moderator position. If they don't like certain facts, they just censor them regardless of how well-argued they are. They delete your posts, hand out warnings, and effectively "deport" you to some digital wasteland.
So, apparently, presenting nothing but raw facts triggers sanctions if those facts happen to rub you the wrong way. Things are getting interesting when the actual policy is being dictated by a PDF sent to @rowdytiger13. He lays out his worldview.You’re just peddling ideological constructs and masquerading them as the official consensus of embryology. Is that my perception, or are you simply moving the goalposts? You don't actually have double standards, but clearly, you need a little nudge to actually start thinking for yourself. 😁 It’s not exactly a catastrophe, but people really shouldn't be posting communication templates. 😁)

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You ask for an opinion, but then you turn around and label an entire group of women as murderers just because of their personal views or religious convictions. That isn't a discussion; it's an attack.

This serves as a prime example of what we’re dealing with here. It's nothing more than blatant labeling and intentional manipulation by the moderators.
I never actually called a woman a murderer, yet the moderator keeps twisting my words. Even when I try to explain the clear distinction between killing and murder, they just hit me with a canned response meant to justify their own bias.

As far as I am concerned, I will certainly not permit this manipulation of guilt, labeling, and the dismantling of discourse through trivial semantic shifts to continue.

You allowed the labeling and manipulation before, but I suppose it’s fine if it comes from someone who shares your views, isn't it?

It seems to me that nothing you have written holds water. You are creating the impression that you want a debate where one side can say absolutely anything while the other is forbidden from presenting facts—effectively banning that second party from using arguments in a discussion. You attempt to exclude people based on imaginary criteria that you apply selectively at your whim; notice how you keep targeting "us" again. Bravo 🙂, if your goal is to reduce this to a conciliatory dialogue between like-minded people pretending to argue. The outcome of such a discussion is entirely predictable, which makes it utterly pointless.

mistyseal8 said:We don't need left-wing or right-wing moderators. We've tried that approach here for years and it hasn't worked.

What we actually need are moderators who know what they're doing and can set their personal convictions aside while they work.

Some of them jumped straight to attacking what I wrote here using their own twisted logic. To me, that's a bad sign. It shows they aren't capable of staying neutral or working without bias.

They might feel like they're on the right side of history, thinking that backing certain ideas serves everyone—themselves, the users, and the forum—but that's not true. They're just serving this new modern ideology, and any ideology like that struggles to tolerate freedom of thought and expression.

So, my advice? Put aside the "political correctness," park your personal views, and aim to be as neutral as possible. You'll do a much better job, believe me.

I’d argue we actually do need them, because right now it feels like conservatives are being singled out.

If there isn't even 5% of so-called 'conservatives' in the forum management (actually even less if you count the few traditionalist types I can think of), and on Politics there hasn't been a single moderator from the American right in the last 6 or 7 years, then by any textbook definition, that's discrimination.

(And honestly, people have already left because of this. Without a diversity of viewpoints, there's no real debate, and without debate, a forum ceases to exist. This "everyone sing in unison" model clearly isn't working anymore).

That's my take. If Jessica Kelly4 leaves, I'm gone too. And it looks like we'll be the last ones standing 😍

Sophia Thomas7 said:I guess it’s because most of the arguments trying to link the two basically boil down to "well, if this becomes legal, then pedophilia is next," at least according to the crowd over at Reddit. 🤦

I remember when the first gay pride march happened—how many years has it been now?—and I think there was a man named Manzin who acted somewhat like their spokesperson back then.
The main objections at the time were centered around the idea that "they want to adopt children and get married," to which he would respond that this wasn't true and certainly wasn't even on the agenda.

Manzin eventually moved on, but then exactly that happened: "marriage equality" and adoption rights became the reality.

One could argue that Manzin wasn't lying, since others took up the mantle after him, but one could also say that those who insisted from the very beginning that the agenda was about "life partnerships and children" were actually right all along.

It ends up feeling as though people only believe one side, where their version of events is simply accepted as fact, which clearly kills any real debate.

Furthermore, there was a recent case in the Netherlands involving the president of an LGBT organization (one that is quite active within the UN) who was accused—and ultimately convicted—of pedophilia.

It would be wrong to claim based on that alone that all LGBT activists are pedophiles, but isn't it logical to assume that if someone is a pedophile, they might try to hide under the guise of being homosexual?

The newer a movement is, the more things tend to get tangled up in it!

boldwalker12 said:Honestly, I’m surprised the people drawing parallels to bestiality aren't getting yelled at too.

Look, guys, it isn't about being on the right or the left—it’s that some of you just can't seem to stay above a basement-level level of discourse. Labeling women who have abortions as murderers, or equating gay people with pedophiles or zoophiles, is just straight-up primal nonsense. It’s bottom-of-the-barrel behavior. That isn't a debate; it's just noise.

And the same goes for zoophilia; it doesn't just involve certain types of behavior, but various other perversions as well.
It seems clear that by liberalizing this particular social segment on the margins, various other forms of sodomy (if that's what we should call them) are being pulled into the mainstream.

boldwalker12 said:Honestly, I’m surprised the people drawing parallels to bestiality aren't getting yelled at too.

Look, guys, it isn't about being on the right or the left—it’s that some of you just can't seem to stay above a basement-level level of discourse. Labeling women who have abortions as murderers, or equating gay people with pedophiles or zoophiles, is just straight-up primal nonsense. It’s bottom-of-the-barrel behavior. That isn't a debate; it's just noise.

Here we clearly run into the problem with moderation itself, where certain individuals place themselves on a moral pedestal as "guardians of civilization"! (Does that sound familiar?)

One could almost interpret it to mean that all conservatives are actually on the wrong side of "moral justice," yet they are tolerated anyway.

Our current civilization is perhaps only twenty to fifty years old; perhaps we are merely dealing with self-appointed guardians.movements within our civilization, a movement is inherently revolutionary by its very nature, which inevitably brings us to the doorstep of those who act as guardians, or perhaps even the vanguard of that revolution or movement.

To claim that all gay people are pedophiles just because of certain individuals within official institutions is foolish, and it is equally foolish to assert that those organizations themselves are pedophilic, if we simply take a moment to remember who was the first to employ such sweeping, generalized logic in the first place?

The core issue here is that one particular type of discourse—the kind driven by trolling—is permitted whenever we find it convenient, yet the moment the roles are reversed, the moral outrage begins.

It seems that everyone judges based on their own yardstick, so in one instance, heavy-handed trolling is tolerated, while in another, even a reasoned debate is immediately dismissed as nothing more than potential trolling.

For some, "a woman's right to abortion" serves as the ultimate benchmark for a civilized society.
For others, the "child's right to life" is the true definition of a civilization's level.

There isn't much utility to be gained from the "arguments" of katotalibani versus child killers, and frankly, that's just trolling, but providing a reasoned explanation of one's stances—even if it doesn't quite qualify as a full debate—is absolutely essential, otherwise, no meaningful dialogue can ever truly exist.

It is perfectly acceptable to view opponents of abortion as religious fundamentalists, provided you explain why you see them that way; perhaps then those individuals might reflect on whether that is actually true, and if it is, they might at least acknowledge that this is why the two sides remain so deeply divided.

Similarly, it is valid to view proponents of abortion as killers (a heavy term used to describe those who end life in accordance with the law for the sake of social utility), and if you explain that reasoning, perhaps they too will undergo some introspection.

But it is simply unwise to let people do whatever they please without pointing out how they are perceived by other groups, all for the sake of avoiding hurting someone's feelings!

If we attempt to suppress discussion, it won't simply vanish; it will merely build up pressure until it erupts even more violently!

mistyjackal14 said:I remember when the first gay pride march happened—how many years has it been now?—and I think there was a man named Manzin who acted somewhat like their spokesperson back then.
The main objections at the time were centered around the idea that "they want to adopt children and get married," to which he would respond that this wasn't true and certainly wasn't even on the agenda.

Manzin eventually moved on, but then exactly that happened: "marriage equality" and adoption rights became the reality.

One could argue that Manzin wasn't lying, since others took up the mantle after him, but one could also say that those who insisted from the very beginning that the agenda was about "life partnerships and children" were actually right all along.

It ends up feeling as though people only believe one side, where their version of events is simply accepted as fact, which clearly kills any real debate.

Furthermore, there was a recent case in the Netherlands involving the president of an LGBT organization (one that is quite active within the UN) who was accused—and ultimately convicted—of pedophilia.

It would be wrong to claim based on that alone that all LGBT activists are pedophiles, but isn't it logical to assume that if someone is a pedophile, they might try to hide under the guise of being homosexual?

The newer a movement is, the more things tend to get tangled up in it!

And the same goes for zoophilia; it doesn't just involve certain types of behavior, but various other perversions as well.
It seems clear that by liberalizing this particular social segment on the margins, various other forms of sodomy (if that's what we should call them) are being pulled into the mainstream.

Here we clearly run into the problem with moderation itself, where certain individuals place themselves on a moral pedestal as "guardians of civilization"! (Does that sound familiar?)

One could almost interpret it to mean that all conservatives are actually on the wrong side of "moral justice," yet they are tolerated anyway.

Our current civilization is perhaps only twenty to fifty years old; perhaps we are merely dealing with self-appointed guardians.movements within our civilization, a movement is inherently revolutionary by its very nature, which inevitably brings us to the doorstep of those who act as guardians, or perhaps even the vanguard of that revolution or movement.

To claim that all gay people are pedophiles just because of certain individuals within official institutions is foolish, and it is equally foolish to assert that those organizations themselves are pedophilic, if we simply take a moment to remember who was the first to employ such sweeping, generalized logic in the first place?

The core issue here is that one particular type of discourse—the kind driven by trolling—is permitted whenever we find it convenient, yet the moment the roles are reversed, the moral outrage begins.

It seems that everyone judges based on their own yardstick, so in one instance, heavy-handed trolling is tolerated, while in another, even a reasoned debate is immediately dismissed as nothing more than potential trolling.

For some, "a woman's right to abortion" serves as the ultimate benchmark for a civilized society.
For others, the "child's right to life" is the true definition of a civilization's level.

There isn't much utility to be gained from the "arguments" of katotalibani versus child killers, and frankly, that's just trolling, but providing a reasoned explanation of one's stances—even if it doesn't quite qualify as a full debate—is absolutely essential, otherwise, no meaningful dialogue can ever truly exist.

It is perfectly acceptable to view opponents of abortion as religious fundamentalists, provided you explain why you see them that way; perhaps then those individuals might reflect on whether that is actually true, and if it is, they might at least acknowledge that this is why the two sides remain so deeply divided.

Similarly, it is valid to view proponents of abortion as killers (a heavy term used to describe those who end life in accordance with the law for the sake of social utility), and if you explain that reasoning, perhaps they too will undergo some introspection.

But it is simply unwise to let people do whatever they please without pointing out how they are perceived by other groups, all for the sake of avoiding hurting someone's feelings!

If we attempt to suppress discussion, it won't simply vanish; it will merely build up pressure until it erupts even more violently!

Look, just because a pressure cooker is about to blow doesn't mean you should hand out matches to the people trying to set it off. Suppressing things isn't the answer, but that doesn't mean we have to tolerate garbage that's straight-up subhuman. If we start letting everything slide under the guise of "open debate," we're basically giving a free pass to every xenophobic jerk out there who wants to calmly explain why certain people are "lesser" because of their skin color or where they were born. That's not how this works. Just because some toxic, pathological hatred is bound to boil over somewhere doesn't mean we have to validate it as a legitimate part of a civilized discussion. If some hateful nonsense starts bubbling up, we shouldn't be feeding it or giving it a stage to perform on.

boldwalker12 said:Look, just because a pressure cooker is about to blow doesn't mean you should hand out matches to the people trying to set it off. Suppressing things isn't the answer, but that doesn't mean we have to tolerate garbage that's straight-up subhuman. If we start letting everything slide under the guise of "open debate," we're basically giving a free pass to every xenophobic jerk out there who wants to calmly explain why certain people are "lesser" because of their skin color or where they were born. That's not how this works. Just because some toxic, pathological hatred is bound to boil over somewhere doesn't mean we have to validate it as a legitimate part of a civilized discussion. If some hateful nonsense starts bubbling up, we shouldn't be feeding it or giving it a stage to perform on.

You’re acting as one of those ideological moderators. You aren't being neutral; you're showing clear bias. All you have to do is look at your own posts on this thread, where you immediately label anyone with opposing views as "disruptive" or claim they're acting beneath a civilized standard. It never even crossed your mind that the other side is perfectly capable of engaging in cultural debate, backed by their own facts, sources, and research to support their positions.

See, this moderator is a perfect example of exactly what I'm talking about. 👍

mistyseal8 said:You’re acting as one of those ideological moderators. You aren't being neutral; you're showing clear bias. All you have to do is look at your own posts on this thread, where you immediately label anyone with opposing views as "disruptive" or claim they're acting beneath a civilized standard. It never even crossed your mind that the other side is perfectly capable of engaging in cultural debate, backed by their own facts, sources, and research to support their positions.

See, this moderator is a perfect example of exactly what I'm talking about. 👍

Since you were trying to toss me links to CNN and stuff during our argument, it’s pretty hard to agree with you that those count as actual "sources" or a real debate.

Just wanted to make sure there wasn't a grain of truth in what you said. Look, I don't hide my opinions—I'm not a robot. If being a moderator required me to be a mindless drone with zero backbone, I never would have taken the job in the first place.

boldwalker12 said:Since you were trying to toss me links to CNN and stuff during our argument, it’s pretty hard to agree with you that those count as actual "sources" or a real debate.

Just wanted to make sure there wasn't a grain of truth in what you said. Look, I don't hide my opinions—I'm not a robot. If being a moderator required me to be a mindless drone with zero backbone, I never would have taken the job in the first place.

I remember that whole situation clearly. We were mid-debate, and you were just tossing out clichés without any actual evidence or reasoning, while I was backing up my points with several links. One of them happened to be from a major news outlet, but honestly, I could have linked to ten other reputable sites. It was purely coincidental that I picked that one. You didn't have a single real argument on your side, so you resorted to that "hahaha, they used a mainstream link!" tactic just to disqualify me. It seems like that's your go-to move whenever a debate gets serious. Well, whatever helps you sleep at night. 🙂 🙂

Sure, moderation requires a certain level of robotic consistency. Honestly, it might be better if you just moved on, because every time you post, you're just proving that you can't stay objective. ☕

mistyseal8 said:I remember that whole situation clearly. We were mid-debate, and you were just tossing out clichés without any actual evidence or reasoning, while I was backing up my points with several links. One of them happened to be from a major news outlet, but honestly, I could have linked to ten other reputable sites. It was purely coincidental that I picked that one. You didn't have a single real argument on your side, so you resorted to that "hahaha, they used a mainstream link!" tactic just to disqualify me. It seems like that's your go-to move whenever a debate gets serious. Well, whatever helps you sleep at night. 🙂 🙂

Sure, moderation requires a certain level of robotic consistency. Honestly, it might be better if you just moved on, because every time you post, you're just proving that you can't stay objective. ☕

Look, I’m not saying I disqualified you or anything, but let's be real—you were just echoing the same kind of nonsense that pops up on major news sites like CNN every single day. You didn't even need to drop the link; honestly, it was just the cherry on top of a pretty ridiculous sundae.

It’s honestly hilarious watching you lecture someone else about being "ideologically biased" when you’re clearly deep in the trenches of your own worldview yourself. You're basically preaching to the choir while wearing the exact same colors. Look, I'm not going to get into a massive back-and-forth with you over this, though—this isn't exactly the right venue for a full-blown ideological brawl.

Yeah, let's be real—moderation definitely involves a certain amount of robotic, mindless busywork. Honestly, it might be better if you just stepped down at this point, because every single post you make just proves you’re completely incapable of being impartial. ☕

Look, sure, being a mod involves certain boundaries, but that doesn't mean a moderator has to be some mindless, soulless drone without a single opinion of their own. Honestly, trying to attack someone just because they have a viewpoint—and then spinning that into some big "critique of the moderation"—is just plain stupid.

I'm on it. Be there in a sec. 😁

boldwalker12 said:Look, I’m not saying I disqualified you or anything, but let's be real—you were just echoing the same kind of nonsense that pops up on major news sites like CNN every single day. You didn't even need to drop the link; honestly, it was just the cherry on top of a pretty ridiculous sundae.

It’s honestly hilarious watching you lecture someone else about being "ideologically biased" when you’re clearly deep in the trenches of your own worldview yourself. You're basically preaching to the choir while wearing the exact same colors. Look, I'm not going to get into a massive back-and-forth with you over this, though—this isn't exactly the right venue for a full-blown ideological brawl.

Yeah, let's be real—moderation definitely involves a certain amount of robotic, mindless busywork. Honestly, it might be better if you just stepped down at this point, because every single post you make just proves you’re completely incapable of being impartial. ☕

Look, sure, being a mod involves certain boundaries, but that doesn't mean a moderator has to be some mindless, soulless drone without a single opinion of their own. Honestly, trying to attack someone just because they have a viewpoint—and then spinning that into some big "critique of the moderation"—is just plain stupid.

I'm on it. Be there in a sec. 😁

Look, I can afford to be opinionated because I'm just a regular user here. I can be totally subjective. As long as I’m following the rules, I’m keeping the forum orderly. If other users want to try and tear me down or discredit my arguments, that’s on them.

The real issue is that in this supposed "fair fight," the moderation needs to stay neutral. They shouldn't be tying one person's hands behind their back while handing weapons to another.

It certainly does include that, but it doesn't mean a moderator has to be a mindless drone without any personal views. It’s silly to take someone's opinions and frame them as a critique of the moderation team.

I'm running! 😁

You’re free to hold your own views, but when you're participating in a discussion, you should act like a standard forum member. However, the moment you step into a moderator role, you have to shed that skin and adopt a completely different persona. You have to be consistent, whether you're dealing with people who agree with you or your ideological opponents. In my opinion, you—and quite a few of your colleagues—just aren't capable of doing that. ☕

boldwalker12 The user states:
It surprises me that those drawing parallels to zoophilia aren't vocalizing their complaints as well.
Look, it isn’t about whether you identify as right-wing or not; the issue is that you lot seem incapable of maintaining even a basic level of civilized discourse. Labeling women who seek abortions as murderers, or branding gay people as pedophiles and zoophiles, isn't an argument—it is pure, unadulterated primitivism. It's beneath any standard of decent human interaction. This isn't a debate.

I held off on commenting on this because I wasn't aware you were a moderator.
That was a pretty distasteful post from the moderator, so I’m adding it to the list.
Just like rowdytiger13, you’re busy slapping labels on people and attributing claims to your opponents that they never actually made. We aren't sitting here discussing whether women are killers; that’s just a point you keep repeating over and over again.So, it’s just a label now—a smear tactic that suddenly and aggressively expanded to include pedophiles, zoophiles, and primitives. Go ahead, add to the list.
The issue is simple: you cannot allow any entry that challenges the remaining ideological foundations of that movement. It is pure dogma. And you execute that quite effectively through censorship.

Let's start from square one...

mistyseal8, you claim that we are dealing with established facts and research.
Look, we could sit here all day and read through "facts" and "studies" claiming the Earth is flat and that any evidence to the contrary has been doctored, or claims that men are being systematically oppressed while women secretly run the world. We could dive into conspiracy theories about thousands of civilians killed during the Storm, or celebrate how certain war criminals are suddenly being declared innocent. Or, if you look at a site like Healthline, you’ll be bombarded with "research" insisting that vaccines are perfectly safe. But let's be clear: not every "fact" qualifies as one, not every study meets scientific standards, and we certainly can't treat every random thesis as equally valid. Allowing that wouldn't be a lack of censorship; it would be the total destruction of a forum. It's the exact same logic applied to your example regarding studies attempting to link homosexuality to pedophilia. That is a thesis that simply shouldn't be permitted here. It’s no different from allowing baseless correlations used to paint the Israeli people as collective criminals due to interventions in Palestine, or grouping all Muslims together under the banner of the Islamic State and then acting surprised when people lament that the Crusades didn't wipe them out. Things like that aren't going to pass. If you want to keep shouting "censorship," go ahead—be my guest.

Jessica Kelly4, you claim that "killing" is just standard terminology in the American lexicon, and honestly, you're right—it is a standard word. However, the moderator intervention didn't happen because someone used some made-up or non-standard vocabulary. It happened because a small clique of users attempted to hijack the entire discussion, reducing every single point to nothing more than the act of killing. That simply isn't permitted under the rules of this Politics forum. The issue at hand is much broader and more significant than that. While radical debaters on both sides try to narrow the complex debate over abortion down to a single, reductive thesis, such behavior provides zero value to this community. We aren't a political party; we don't need to coordinate a single mantra and stick to it religiously.

One more thing—not that you actually asked, but since I’m already typing: the pro-life side possesses a comprehensive array of compelling arguments regarding the abortion debate. I truly believe that banning the term "killing"—which essentially amounts to indirectly accusing women of being murderers—has been a productive move for this discourse. Or at least, it ought to be. When a topic is constantly derailed by persistent trolling aimed at a handful of individuals, it effectively shuts down any chance for qualified participants to engage in a rational conversation. You actually reinforce my point yourself when you mention that you don't mind changing terminology, provided it isn't used as a tool for restriction. Let's be clear: anyone capable of holding a civilized discussion won't be hindered by a simple shift in vocabulary. As for your grievance regarding moderator intervention... yes, I understand how that feels. But occasionally, isn't it necessary? If it weren't, there would be no need for moderators to exist in the first place.

And finally, you suggested I was being subjective and biased because I claimed that banning any comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia is merely a projection of one's own fears. Perhaps that isn't the case. It is entirely possible that the architects of such theories aren't actually afraid; if that’s true, then their actions are even more egregious, as they are essentially spreading hate speech under the guise of demonizing an entire group of people. For a better understanding of my position, you might want to look back at my response to mistyseal8 above. We simply won't tolerate that kind of rhetoric here, and as long as I have any influence at all, it certainly won't be accepted as valid argumentation.

Susan Price30, look, some moderators are simply better than others. It has nothing to do with one's worldview or any other ideological divide, regardless of the subject matter at hand. Jessica Kelly4 suggests that we ought to clone our esteemed colleague Power Locko, and I find myself in agreement—not that I’m advocating for actual human cloning, of course, but rather acknowledging and respecting his obvious competence. However, speaking from the perspective of someone who actually handles the complaints: you should know that a moderator also receives a significant number of grievances from those who simply disagree with them, most often by claiming bias. That is just the nature of the job. I am certainly not suggesting that moderators are infallible; we all make mistakes, despite our best efforts to excel at what we do. My point is merely that, very frequently, any moderator action is treated as though we are taking a side. To give you a concrete example: during my relatively short tenure as a moderator for Politics, I have been accused of being biased at least ten or fifteen times. The accusation is always the same: that I only protect the "freedom of speech" for extremists and radicals. 😵

To wrap things up, I’ll just echo my own thoughts from earlier. It is the responsibility of the moderators to design and maintain the boundaries for acceptable discussion. This naturally requires intervention to prevent insults, hate speech, and other serious offenses. However, beyond that, establishing those boundaries sometimes necessitates curbing the radicalization of topics—preventing them from veering into territory that kills the conversation rather than making it more productive. Preventing a thread in the Politics section from being completely derailed by people screaming "MURDER" and "KILLERS" is exactly the kind of intervention needed.

I don't have much else to say on this. We’ve burned through post after post about nothing, rather than actually discussing anything meaningful. Even the original poster noted that these terminological hurdles are easily bypassed, which essentially means we aren't stopping actual debaters, just the loudmouths. I suggest we head back to the main forum and get back to actual forumming.

William Bennett53 said:Let's start from square one...

mistyseal8, you claim that we are dealing with established facts and research.
Look, we could sit here all day and read through "facts" and "studies" claiming the Earth is flat and that any evidence to the contrary has been doctored, or claims that men are being systematically oppressed while women secretly run the world. We could dive into conspiracy theories about thousands of civilians killed during the Storm, or celebrate how certain war criminals are suddenly being declared innocent. Or, if you look at a site like Healthline, you’ll be bombarded with "research" insisting that vaccines are perfectly safe. But let's be clear: not every "fact" qualifies as one, not every study meets scientific standards, and we certainly can't treat every random thesis as equally valid. Allowing that wouldn't be a lack of censorship; it would be the total destruction of a forum. It's the exact same logic applied to your example regarding studies attempting to link homosexuality to pedophilia. That is a thesis that simply shouldn't be permitted here. It’s no different from allowing baseless correlations used to paint the Israeli people as collective criminals due to interventions in Palestine, or grouping all Muslims together under the banner of the Islamic State and then acting surprised when people lament that the Crusades didn't wipe them out. Things like that aren't going to pass. If you want to keep shouting "censorship," go ahead—be my guest.

Jessica Kelly4, you claim that "killing" is just standard terminology in the American lexicon, and honestly, you're right—it is a standard word. However, the moderator intervention didn't happen because someone used some made-up or non-standard vocabulary. It happened because a small clique of users attempted to hijack the entire discussion, reducing every single point to nothing more than the act of killing. That simply isn't permitted under the rules of this Politics forum. The issue at hand is much broader and more significant than that. While radical debaters on both sides try to narrow the complex debate over abortion down to a single, reductive thesis, such behavior provides zero value to this community. We aren't a political party; we don't need to coordinate a single mantra and stick to it religiously.

One more thing—not that you actually asked, but since I’m already typing: the pro-life side possesses a comprehensive array of compelling arguments regarding the abortion debate. I truly believe that banning the term "killing"—which essentially amounts to indirectly accusing women of being murderers—has been a productive move for this discourse. Or at least, it ought to be. When a topic is constantly derailed by persistent trolling aimed at a handful of individuals, it effectively shuts down any chance for qualified participants to engage in a rational conversation. You actually reinforce my point yourself when you mention that you don't mind changing terminology, provided it isn't used as a tool for restriction. Let's be clear: anyone capable of holding a civilized discussion won't be hindered by a simple shift in vocabulary. As for your grievance regarding moderator intervention... yes, I understand how that feels. But occasionally, isn't it necessary? If it weren't, there would be no need for moderators to exist in the first place.

And finally, you suggested I was being subjective and biased because I claimed that banning any comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia is merely a projection of one's own fears. Perhaps that isn't the case. It is entirely possible that the architects of such theories aren't actually afraid; if that’s true, then their actions are even more egregious, as they are essentially spreading hate speech under the guise of demonizing an entire group of people. For a better understanding of my position, you might want to look back at my response to mistyseal8 above. We simply won't tolerate that kind of rhetoric here, and as long as I have any influence at all, it certainly won't be accepted as valid argumentation.

Susan Price30, look, some moderators are simply better than others. It has nothing to do with one's worldview or any other ideological divide, regardless of the subject matter at hand. Jessica Kelly4 suggests that we ought to clone our esteemed colleague Power Locko, and I find myself in agreement—not that I’m advocating for actual human cloning, of course, but rather acknowledging and respecting his obvious competence. However, speaking from the perspective of someone who actually handles the complaints: you should know that a moderator also receives a significant number of grievances from those who simply disagree with them, most often by claiming bias. That is just the nature of the job. I am certainly not suggesting that moderators are infallible; we all make mistakes, despite our best efforts to excel at what we do. My point is merely that, very frequently, any moderator action is treated as though we are taking a side. To give you a concrete example: during my relatively short tenure as a moderator for Politics, I have been accused of being biased at least ten or fifteen times. The accusation is always the same: that I only protect the "freedom of speech" for extremists and radicals. 😵

To wrap things up, I’ll just echo my own thoughts from earlier. It is the responsibility of the moderators to design and maintain the boundaries for acceptable discussion. This naturally requires intervention to prevent insults, hate speech, and other serious offenses. However, beyond that, establishing those boundaries sometimes necessitates curbing the radicalization of topics—preventing them from veering into territory that kills the conversation rather than making it more productive. Preventing a thread in the Politics section from being completely derailed by people screaming "MURDER" and "KILLERS" is exactly the kind of intervention needed.

I don't have much else to say on this. We’ve burned through post after post about nothing, rather than actually discussing anything meaningful. Even the original poster noted that these terminological hurdles are easily bypassed, which essentially means we aren't stopping actual debaters, just the loudmouths. I suggest we head back to the main forum and get back to actual forumming.

Did I say that homosexuality and pedophilia were being equated? I don't think I did. You can certainly discuss both topics without making a direct comparison—for instance, by examining their relationship to one another. There is actual research out there on the subject, regardless of whether it offends someone's specific ideological sensibilities.

It honestly makes my blood run cold when I hear people say, "we just shouldn't allow it." It’s terrifying to think that we're increasingly being handed over to ideological gatekeepers—people who want to sit in judgment and decide which ideas are acceptable and which ones are considered "offensive" or taboo. Personally, I value open conversation too much to see that happen.

The path you're taking here will just lead to creating an echo chamber where like-minded people pat each other on the back and congratulate one another on being so brilliant. Best of luck with that. ☕

William Bennett53 said:Let's start from square one...

mistyseal8, you claim that we are dealing with established facts and research.
Look, we could sit here all day and read through "facts" and "studies" claiming the Earth is flat and that any evidence to the contrary has been doctored, or claims that men are being systematically oppressed while women secretly run the world. We could dive into conspiracy theories about thousands of civilians killed during the Storm, or celebrate how certain war criminals are suddenly being declared innocent. Or, if you look at a site like Healthline, you’ll be bombarded with "research" insisting that vaccines are perfectly safe. But let's be clear: not every "fact" qualifies as one, not every study meets scientific standards, and we certainly can't treat every random thesis as equally valid. Allowing that wouldn't be a lack of censorship; it would be the total destruction of a forum. It's the exact same logic applied to your example regarding studies attempting to link homosexuality to pedophilia. That is a thesis that simply shouldn't be permitted here. It’s no different from allowing baseless correlations used to paint the Israeli people as collective criminals due to interventions in Palestine, or grouping all Muslims together under the banner of the Islamic State and then acting surprised when people lament that the Crusades didn't wipe them out. Things like that aren't going to pass. If you want to keep shouting "censorship," go ahead—be my guest.

Jessica Kelly4, you claim that "killing" is just standard terminology in the American lexicon, and honestly, you're right—it is a standard word. However, the moderator intervention didn't happen because someone used some made-up or non-standard vocabulary. It happened because a small clique of users attempted to hijack the entire discussion, reducing every single point to nothing more than the act of killing. That simply isn't permitted under the rules of this Politics forum. The issue at hand is much broader and more significant than that. While radical debaters on both sides try to narrow the complex debate over abortion down to a single, reductive thesis, such behavior provides zero value to this community. We aren't a political party; we don't need to coordinate a single mantra and stick to it religiously.

One more thing—not that you actually asked, but since I’m already typing: the pro-life side possesses a comprehensive array of compelling arguments regarding the abortion debate. I truly believe that banning the term "killing"—which essentially amounts to indirectly accusing women of being murderers—has been a productive move for this discourse. Or at least, it ought to be. When a topic is constantly derailed by persistent trolling aimed at a handful of individuals, it effectively shuts down any chance for qualified participants to engage in a rational conversation. You actually reinforce my point yourself when you mention that you don't mind changing terminology, provided it isn't used as a tool for restriction. Let's be clear: anyone capable of holding a civilized discussion won't be hindered by a simple shift in vocabulary. As for your grievance regarding moderator intervention... yes, I understand how that feels. But occasionally, isn't it necessary? If it weren't, there would be no need for moderators to exist in the first place.

And finally, you suggested I was being subjective and biased because I claimed that banning any comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia is merely a projection of one's own fears. Perhaps that isn't the case. It is entirely possible that the architects of such theories aren't actually afraid; if that’s true, then their actions are even more egregious, as they are essentially spreading hate speech under the guise of demonizing an entire group of people. For a better understanding of my position, you might want to look back at my response to mistyseal8 above. We simply won't tolerate that kind of rhetoric here, and as long as I have any influence at all, it certainly won't be accepted as valid argumentation.

Susan Price30, look, some moderators are simply better than others. It has nothing to do with one's worldview or any other ideological divide, regardless of the subject matter at hand. Jessica Kelly4 suggests that we ought to clone our esteemed colleague Power Locko, and I find myself in agreement—not that I’m advocating for actual human cloning, of course, but rather acknowledging and respecting his obvious competence. However, speaking from the perspective of someone who actually handles the complaints: you should know that a moderator also receives a significant number of grievances from those who simply disagree with them, most often by claiming bias. That is just the nature of the job. I am certainly not suggesting that moderators are infallible; we all make mistakes, despite our best efforts to excel at what we do. My point is merely that, very frequently, any moderator action is treated as though we are taking a side. To give you a concrete example: during my relatively short tenure as a moderator for Politics, I have been accused of being biased at least ten or fifteen times. The accusation is always the same: that I only protect the "freedom of speech" for extremists and radicals. 😵

To wrap things up, I’ll just echo my own thoughts from earlier. It is the responsibility of the moderators to design and maintain the boundaries for acceptable discussion. This naturally requires intervention to prevent insults, hate speech, and other serious offenses. However, beyond that, establishing those boundaries sometimes necessitates curbing the radicalization of topics—preventing them from veering into territory that kills the conversation rather than making it more productive. Preventing a thread in the Politics section from being completely derailed by people screaming "MURDER" and "KILLERS" is exactly the kind of intervention needed.

I don't have much else to say on this. We’ve burned through post after post about nothing, rather than actually discussing anything meaningful. Even the original poster noted that these terminological hurdles are easily bypassed, which essentially means we aren't stopping actual debaters, just the loudmouths. I suggest we head back to the main forum and get back to actual forumming.

I see you "wisely" avoided that thread about the politics pojam katoliban postan 28 put.
I guess that kind of shouting is what actually drives a discussion forward?

It goes without saying that your intervention killed the topic. You basically forced it back into a narrow debate about why men shouldn't be able to waive paternity while women have abortion rights. And you did it right when the pro-life side was laying out solid arguments for "the fetus is a living human being, ending its life is murder." Instead of counter-arguments, you and rowdytiger13 acted like local sheriffs to shut down anyone making an uncomfortable point.

It’s a shame you can't tell the difference between a reasoned debate and inflammatory posts. Honestly, arguing this with you feels pointless since you're the subject of my complaint. It’s like being tried by the same judge who's accusing you.

If you have nothing else to say, we're done here.
Go ahead and keep debating why men are being treated unfairly.

boldwalker12 said:Look, just because a pressure cooker is about to blow doesn't mean you should hand out matches to the people trying to set it off. Suppressing things isn't the answer, but that doesn't mean we have to tolerate garbage that's straight-up subhuman. If we start letting everything slide under the guise of "open debate," we're basically giving a free pass to every xenophobic jerk out there who wants to calmly explain why certain people are "lesser" because of their skin color or where they were born. That's not how this works. Just because some toxic, pathological hatred is bound to boil over somewhere doesn't mean we have to validate it as a legitimate part of a civilized discussion. If some hateful nonsense starts bubbling up, we shouldn't be feeding it or giving it a stage to perform on.

For some people, the concept of "choice regarding abortion" serves as the very benchmark of a civilized society.
Yet, for others, the "child's right to life" is what defines the level of our civilization.

Both sides possess their own internal logic and arguments, and personally, when I find myself in a debate, I try to explain why my position holds an imperative weight over anyone else's.
I mean, I acknowledge the other side exists, and I recognize the necessity for different viewpoints to exist, but I use arguments to demonstrate how my perspective, in a specific instance, carries a moral imperative that cannot be ignored.

It seems useful to accept that there are people who feel the exact same depth of empathy for the victims of the Holocaust, Bleiburg, and the LGBTQ community alike.

In today's world, it is socially unacceptable to refer to Holocaust victims with certain disparaging terms, and similarly, it is socially unacceptable to speak of the victims of Bleiburg in such a way, but for many people, it is equally unacceptable to refer to the LGBTQ community with derogatory labels, especially when accompanied by appropriate smirks.