Ministry of Truth

I’m totally on board with this move by the mods. Honestly, I think we should apply this same logic to all the other threads too. When it comes to certain core principles and big-picture ideas, there shouldn't be any debating or attempts at "quasi-democracy."

rowdydrifter22 said:

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.

So, if it's not them, then what exactly is the person committing the murder? I'm genuinely curious to hear your answer.

mistyjackal14 said: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.

Holocaust victims were never called "uncles"—it’s honestly horrific to even joke about that or try to make a point with it.

I have no clue who is grinning or using that specific term, but I haven't seen it once from anyone on the pro-choice forums. Because let me be clear: being pro-choice doesn't mean you're pro-abortion.

The second you start equating murders and genocides with abortions, we aren't having a debate anymore; we're just labeling doctors and women as murderers. I don't know why you people refuse to accept that and try to wrap it up in some other fancy wording. The person committing a murder is a murderer. Period.

boldwalker12 said:Holocaust victims were never called "uncles"—it’s honestly horrific to even joke about that or try to make a point with it.

I have no clue who is grinning or using that specific term, but I haven't seen it once from anyone on the pro-choice forums. Because let me be clear: being pro-choice doesn't mean you're pro-abortion.

The second you start equating murders and genocides with abortions, we aren't having a debate anymore; we're just labeling doctors and women as murderers. I don't know why you people refuse to accept that and try to wrap it up in some other fancy wording. The person committing a murder is a murderer. Period.

And there you have it—you've summed it up perfectly.🙂

Since I've been called out, I'll just say this: I stand by whatever the supermoderators have to say.

You know what? Let's just get straight to the point. The moderators are totally within their rights to stop people from calling abortion murder, because let’s be real—it isn’t murder. A fetus isn't a human being yet. It’s a fetus that eventually becomes one, but that process doesn't count until birth, once they aren't dependent on the mother anymore. Until then, it's essentially just part of the mother's body, and she should be able to do whatever she wants with it. Sure, is a fetus "alive"? Well, is a fingernail alive? It's a part of the body. Consciousness develops later, right when they are born and become a person.

The whole debate where people claim a fetus—which is basically stuck in that limbo between non-existence and life—is already a living being? That’s just pure manipulation. It’s a tactic we see all the time coming from religious circles. Like the moderator said, it's clearly ideologically driven. Then, those same people turn around and accuse you of having an ideology just so they can force theirs on everyone else. It's just primitive, cheap manipulation, and honestly, I'm glad it's being shut down.

A fetus isn't a person. A fetus is a fetus. Ending a pregnancy isn't murder. We all know what actual murder is. So, yeah, I'm backing the moderators here. They’re fighting a tough battle against all these aggressive ideological groups on this forum who think they can sway society and color the world however they want. Well, they won't. Or, as my mom used to say, "not on my watch!" 🙂

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 partially agree here; if we could just keep the "noise-makers" under control from both sides of the argument, that would likely solve the issue.

(It is good that this point was reaffirmed once more here).

Furthermore, anyone interested can look at the preceding posts and conclude who the actual "noise-maker" was in this thread—specifically, who was attempting tola sabotage the topic by spamming or dragging it off-topic right from the start.

Just something to keep in mind for the future.😉

Thanks, DG.

*Regarding that comment about the quality of moderators, it all holds up—though it is possible Jessica Kelly4 was being somewhat ironic with that post (given the choice of emoji); I certainly didn't take it literally.

@Harold Evans3, most of what you wrote doesn't even belong here. You're just trolling and trying to get threads shut down. It’s not fair, because I actually care about making sense of how the moderators operate. I'm not saying they're doing it on purpose, but at least then I'd know it's not right.

Look, I'm not denying anyone's right to an opinion—not yours, and not the mods'.
All I want from the moderators is objectivity. They should be able to recognize consistency and allow a debate to happen even when they don't like where it's going.

The way things work now, it's apparently fine to throw labels around—like calling someone a "catholiban" or a communist—and that isn't seen as breaking the rules. But if you claim that a fetus is a living human being and that ending its life is murder, suddenly that's a problem.
How is a legitimate, legal pro-life political stance ever going to have a seat at the table on this forum if the moderators keep blocking them?

One more thing—you didn't ask, but since I'm writing anyway: the pro-life side actually brings several heavy-hitting arguments to the abortion debate. I truly believe that banning the word "murder," or indirectly labeling women who have abortions as killers, has been beneficial for the quality of the discussion.

Or perhaps it will be, because letting a few persistent trolls derail a topic prevents any qualified participants from having a civilized conversation. You even admitted this yourself when you noted that changing terminology isn't the issue, but rather the restriction itself. Well, anyone capable of actual debate won't be bothered by a change in wording. As for being annoyed by moderator intervention... I understand, but sometimes it is necessary. If it weren't, we wouldn't need moderators at all.

Why not just deal with the troll problem directly instead of outright banning specific terminology during an argumentative debate, for example?

(That's how the moderators on the Politics board usually handle things on other topics, too)

Because it seems like they are trying to avoid using the word murder (on the Politics board, though not on the Religion board) just to prevent those people from coming in solely to troll. Then there's the cloning, and so on.

So, for instance, couldn't trolls and agitators, as you call them, simply be removed from a Politics discussion via a quick procedure instead of implementing a total ban on certain terms?

Wouldn't that be easier for the mods and better for the forum? Better for everyone.

Besides, the abortion debate is one of the most serious and certainly political topics out there—setting aside the "hysteria" from certain users who, as a rule, rarely stick around for these kinds of discussions once they realize they're being ignored.

Generally speaking, there are so many trolls on the Politics board with the exact same tired mantras that it's becoming nearly impossible to write on most topics. Dealing with that sooner would be better for everyone, in my opinion.

boldwalker12 said:So, if it's not them, then what exactly is the person committing the murder? I'm genuinely curious to hear your answer.

You’ve completely misread my point. My post wasn't an invitation for a debate; it was a critique of how the moderators handle anyone who disagrees with them.
We can discuss specific topics and terminology in the appropriate threads, provided the moderators actually allow for discussion to take place.

rowdydrifter22 said:You’ve completely misread my point. My post wasn't an invitation for a debate; it was a critique of how the moderators handle anyone who disagrees with them.
We can discuss specific topics and terminology in the appropriate threads, provided the moderators actually allow for discussion to take place.

Actually, I didn't misread a thing. You guys are basically demanding permission to call abortion murder. I already pointed out that by doing that, you're effectively labeling people as murderers. And don't even try to lie and say nobody is calling anyone a murderer.

Susan Price30 said:

One more thing—you didn't ask, but since I'm writing anyway: the pro-life side actually brings several heavy-hitting arguments to the abortion debate. I truly believe that banning the word "murder," or indirectly labeling women who have abortions as killers, has been beneficial for the quality of the discussion.

Or perhaps it will be, because letting a few persistent trolls derail a topic prevents any qualified participants from having a civilized conversation. You even admitted this yourself when you noted that changing terminology isn't the issue, but rather the restriction itself. Well, anyone capable of actual debate won't be bothered by a change in wording. As for being annoyed by moderator intervention... I understand, but sometimes it is necessary. If it weren't, we wouldn't need moderators at all.

Why not just deal with the troll problem directly instead of outright banning specific terminology during an argumentative debate, for example?

(That's how the moderators on the Politics board usually handle things on other topics, too)

Because it seems like they are trying to avoid using the word murder (on the Politics board, though not on the Religion board) just to prevent those people from coming in solely to troll. Then there's the cloning, and so on.

So, for instance, couldn't trolls and agitators, as you call them, simply be removed from a Politics discussion via a quick procedure instead of implementing a total ban on certain terms?

Wouldn't that be easier for the mods and better for the forum? Better for everyone.

Besides, the abortion debate is one of the most serious and certainly political topics out there—setting aside the "hysteria" from certain users who, as a rule, rarely stick around for these kinds of discussions once they realize they're being ignored.

Generally speaking, there are so many trolls on the Politics board with the exact same tired mantras that it's becoming nearly impossible to write on most topics. Dealing with that sooner would be better for everyone, in my opinion.

That’s part of the issue—the reason several users got banned and the whole debate went off the rails.

But this is literally obstructing the pro-life stance.
Here is the email from the thread moderator, rowdytiger13:

An embryo isn't a human being.
It isn't considered one. It has the potential to become a human being, but it isn't yet.
This is the official stance. Abortion isn't murder (otherwise it would be a crime), and an embryo isn't a human being.

Once the "official stance" was declared (?!?), a super-mod stepped in to double down on banning the term "killing" and handed out bans.

So, what kind of free discussion are we actually having here?

And I still maintain the debate was civil and consistent; I provided links proving the fetus is a living being. Of course, that's not some absolute truth—this is a forum, not an academic institution. What more can a user provide than a credible link? I have plenty of those; you just need to check the pro-life departments at Princeton or Yale for citations from scientific papers. I didn't come here to become them.

That's the consistency I'm talking about, and I think moderators should recognize it. If I provide credible links, if I discuss a legal and legitimate political option, and if I use the legal and legitimate discourse of that political option, then we're talking about consistent views that a moderator shouldn't ban, but instead allow others to counter with arguments.

I find myself wondering—how much longer will our esteemed moderator above flaunt her status?

We all heard it (or rather, we read it, lol), since she basically repeated the exact same thing ten times in a row.

And?

wth?

Jessica Kelly4 said:@Harold Evans3, most of what you wrote doesn't even belong here. You're just trolling and trying to get threads shut down. It’s not fair, because I actually care about making sense of how the moderators operate. I'm not saying they're doing it on purpose, but at least then I'd know it's not right.

Look, I'm not denying anyone's right to an opinion—not yours, and not the mods'.
All I want from the moderators is objectivity. They should be able to recognize consistency and allow a debate to happen even when they don't like where it's going.

The way things work now, it's apparently fine to throw labels around—like calling someone a "catholiban" or a communist—and that isn't seen as breaking the rules. But if you claim that a fetus is a living human being and that ending its life is murder, suddenly that's a problem.
How is a legitimate, legal pro-life political stance ever going to have a seat at the table on this forum if the moderators keep blocking them?

I decided to go back and verify the numbers... I am using my tablet, so my math might not be absolutely flawless, but it is certainly close enough. In the PDF covering the last six months, the phrase "politics pojam katoliban postan 28 put" appears 28 times. If you subtract the instances where users are merely quoting someone else to react to what was said (rather than actually using the term themselves), or the posts where members are explicitly calling for the term to be banned, you are left with about 13 or 14 actual entries. Of course, I may have missed a variation in grammar or a typo, but let us be realistic: we are looking at a PDF containing tens of thousands of posts from that period. Therefore, the notion that "catholibanism" is a standard or acceptable label is simply not supported by the data.
In the other PDF I moderate, the Religion board, that specific expression has been strictly prohibited, and if memory serves, there hasn't been an unmoderated instance of it in a year and a half.

So, let’s get back to the facts.

Susan Price30 said:I find myself wondering—how much longer will our esteemed moderator above flaunt her status?

We all heard it (or rather, we read it, lol), since she basically repeated the exact same thing ten times in a row.

And?

wth?

Given how stubbornly you keep pushing certain agendas, I feel like I have every right to speak my mind. What you're trying to pass off as "freedom of speech" is actually pretty dangerous, and I'm totally against it.

If I'm breaking any rules, then fine, hand me the ban—I honestly care more about this than some digital strike. But until then, don't come at me for doing things you're doing yourself.

boldwalker12 said:Given how stubbornly you keep pushing certain agendas, I feel like I have every right to speak my mind. What you're trying to pass off as "freedom of speech" is actually pretty dangerous, and I'm totally against it.

If I'm breaking any rules, then fine, hand me the ban—I honestly care more about this than some digital strike. But until then, don't come at me for doing things you're doing yourself.

I am not bragging.🙂 Nor am I hysterical.

Best,

Jessica Kelly4 said:That’s part of the issue—the reason several users got banned and the whole debate went off the rails.

But this is literally obstructing the pro-life stance.
Here is the email from the thread moderator, rowdytiger13:

An embryo isn't a human being.
It isn't considered one. It has the potential to become a human being, but it isn't yet.
This is the official stance. Abortion isn't murder (otherwise it would be a crime), and an embryo isn't a human being.

Once the "official stance" was declared (?!?), a super-mod stepped in to double down on banning the term "killing" and handed out bans.

So, what kind of free discussion are we actually having here?

And I still maintain the debate was civil and consistent; I provided links proving the fetus is a living being. Of course, that's not some absolute truth—this is a forum, not an academic institution. What more can a user provide than a credible link? I have plenty of those; you just need to check the pro-life departments at Princeton or Yale for citations from scientific papers. I didn't come here to become them.

That's the consistency I'm talking about, and I think moderators should recognize it. If I provide credible links, if I discuss a legal and legitimate political option, and if I use the legal and legitimate discourse of that political option, then we're talking about consistent views that a moderator shouldn't ban, but instead allow others to counter with arguments.

It’s a classic journey, really: moving from one set of dogmas to another. It might take a little while, but eventually, we'll have a complete dictionary of all the "correct" opinions. Discussions will basically just consist of everyone nodding in agreement and giving each other pats on the back. Honestly, we already see plenty of threads like that on this forum! 👍

William Bennett53 said:I decided to go back and verify the numbers... I am using my tablet, so my math might not be absolutely flawless, but it is certainly close enough. In the PDF covering the last six months, the phrase "politics pojam katoliban postan 28 put" appears 28 times. If you subtract the instances where users are merely quoting someone else to react to what was said (rather than actually using the term themselves), or the posts where members are explicitly calling for the term to be banned, you are left with about 13 or 14 actual entries. Of course, I may have missed a variation in grammar or a typo, but let us be realistic: we are looking at a PDF containing tens of thousands of posts from that period. Therefore, the notion that "catholibanism" is a standard or acceptable label is simply not supported by the data.
In the other PDF I moderate, the Religion board, that specific expression has been strictly prohibited, and if memory serves, there hasn't been an unmoderated instance of it in a year and a half.

So, let’s get back to the facts.

You only searched for "catholiban," you need to search for all variations of that word.
Since we're talking stats, on the abortion thread, the word "killing" shows up in 25 posts out of over 1,500. And that's supposed to be destroying the debate? Using "catholiban" is direct labeling meant to insult, whereas claiming a fetus is being killed is just a rational viewpoint.

William Bennett53 said:I decided to go back and verify the numbers... I am using my tablet, so my math might not be absolutely flawless, but it is certainly close enough. In the PDF covering the last six months, the phrase "politics pojam katoliban postan 28 put" appears 28 times. If you subtract the instances where users are merely quoting someone else to react to what was said (rather than actually using the term themselves), or the posts where members are explicitly calling for the term to be banned, you are left with about 13 or 14 actual entries. Of course, I may have missed a variation in grammar or a typo, but let us be realistic: we are looking at a PDF containing tens of thousands of posts from that period. Therefore, the notion that "catholibanism" is a standard or acceptable label is simply not supported by the data.
In the other PDF I moderate, the Religion board, that specific expression has been strictly prohibited, and if memory serves, there hasn't been an unmoderated instance of it in a year and a half.

So, let’s get back to the facts.

Fine, let's drop the other terms.

mistyseal8 said:It’s a classic journey, really: moving from one set of dogmas to another. It might take a little while, but eventually, we'll have a complete dictionary of all the "correct" opinions. Discussions will basically just consist of everyone nodding in agreement and giving each other pats on the back. Honestly, we already see plenty of threads like that on this forum! 👍

Yeah, sure. ZK is so famous for everyone being best buddies and constantly agreeing with each other that they even made a custom smiley just to capture that specific brand of harmony. Give me a break.

Total dogma. Talk about the speck in someone else's eye while ignoring the damn log in your own.