ZK - clarification on rules regarding the men's and women's community and user records

Look, folks, as much as you all seem to want to drag politics onto Zodiac Killer, it’s just not going to happen. None of us are stepping up to moderate political threads. Politics doesn't belong here on Zodiac Killer.

If you're really dying to have those kinds of debates involving political topics, there's the Politics PDF. I realize people aren't exactly thrilled about it since the rules are way stricter over there, but there's a reason for that.

So, I’m asking nicely: please leave the politics off Zodiac Killer. If you're actually as articulate and skilled at debating as you claim, I'm sure you can find a way to talk about these things without bringing up Marshall or America.

I’d like to suggest that the moderators consider banning posts that clearly smell like religious provocations—it might be worth carding them, too. Around here, faith is so deeply intertwined with social issues, though that certainly doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned at all...
The Zodiac Killer is starting to make a presence in the "nature and society" subforum, and if we pay attention and standardize our criteria, this could actually become a quite pleasant place again.

Why am I bringing this up? Well, because I was one of the first people to use terms like "non-humans" and "altar-lickers" on that very topic—which are basically insults targeting religious foundations. Unfortunately, I didn't realize what I had actually written until Kevin Mitchell20 and gzena warned me—each in their own way. Posts like mine should be carded, because from an outsider's perspective, it really looks like it's okay to lash out at an entire group with such ugly language. Just because most writers there probably know I don't have any personal beef with believers—especially not as a whole—doesn't mean I (or anyone else) should express myself that way. If nothing else, we should do it for the sake of the decent believers who just read along, but don't dare post because of the general atmosphere... or because they feel insulted before they even get a word in due to the prejudice that believers are inherently backward, or whatever other themes are slowly becoming the leitmotif here on the Zodiac Killer.

Insulting and marginalizing people based on their religious beliefs is against the law, whether that faith is the majority or a minority 🤷

As for politics—having concrete political debates wouldn't make the Zodiac Killer any more pleasant anyway; I actually like the ban. Politics in America is often just another word for corruption, and there are other ways to talk about it—bringing up things like the Civil War or the Red Scare feels pretty unnecessary...

Joshua Jones13 said:Look, folks, as much as you all seem to want to drag politics onto Zodiac Killer, it’s just not going to happen. None of us are stepping up to moderate political threads. Politics doesn't belong here on Zodiac Killer.

If you're really dying to have those kinds of debates involving political topics, there's the Politics PDF. I realize people aren't exactly thrilled about it since the rules are way stricter over there, but there's a reason for that.

So, I’m asking nicely: please leave the politics off Zodiac Killer. If you're actually as articulate and skilled at debating as you claim, I'm sure you can find a way to talk about these things without bringing up Marshall or America.

I mean, yeah, I agree we shouldn't be bringing politics onto the Zodiac Killer boards in general.
But man, look at what happens when we touch on a topic that's actually important or heated in society.
Like, is someone even allowed to answer a claim that homosexuality faced its worst persecution from the church? Because you kind of have to mention certain eras and systems to make sense, but apparently, those are considered "political." Meanwhile, some people can drone on about religion and somehow it's fine.
Direct political debates? Sure, no way. But if these topics come up just to explain or clarify something during a discussion—and then people don't just keep pushing it—I guess it shouldn't be such a huge deal to let that explanation stay.

Bradley Sanders4 said:Actually, yeah, it is possible. We haven't lived under a one-party system for twenty years, and frankly, that history isn't nearly as relevant to this topic as, say, ancient Greece or some Islamic states might be. The real issue is that the go-to arguments in these debates usually boil down to "well, things were better under Marshall," which is just a nasty way of implying that gay people are all atheists or nostalgic for the old regime. Once someone pulls that kind of "logic" out of their pocket, of course someone else is going to jump in to call them out.

Stop dragging Marshall and Stalin into this as if they're valid talking points, otherwise, we'll never get any actual political discussion done. Cut the philosophy crap.

Can you even perform surgery on social shifts by just dissecting one specific era?
And is it actually possible for parents to have zero impact on who their twenty-year-old kid turns out to be today?

One last thing—what kind of method even exists to separate religion from politics?

All in all, I'm with aryna and Megalodon on this one...

Kevin Mitchell20 said:Can you even perform surgery on social shifts by just dissecting one specific era?
And is it actually possible for parents to have zero impact on who their twenty-year-old kid turns out to be today?

One last thing—what kind of method even exists to separate religion from politics?

All in all, I'm with aryna and Megalodon on this one...

Look, there’s a massive difference between bringing up old-school communist regimes and pointing at organized religion. The church still refuses to accept homosexuality today, which directly fuels intolerance and discrimination in our society. It’s a continuous political pattern, whether you like it or not. Honestly, I hate making comparisons to the Middle Ages or witch hunts, but it’s pure hypocrisy to ignore this when the media is constantly flooded with priests pushing blatant discrimination. On the flip side, communism hasn't been a state ideology here for decades. Arguing about what those guys did forty or sixty years ago is just pointless because you're debating a ghost—there is no continuity there. It’s like trying to debate what the Nazis did; sure, maybe some twenty-year-old's grandparents were influenced by them, but we all know exactly where that line of reasoning leads. And let's be real: communists weren't some isolated weird case. Homosexuality was treated as an illness and criminalized throughout the entire Western world well into the mid-seventies. So, if we’re going to drag up the horrors of America, then fine, let's talk about the legacy of Thatcherism and Reagan, too—because unlike communism, that stuff is still very much alive and kicking today. Sure, the relationship between the church and the party was tense, but I don't see how that translates to their stance on homosexuality when both sides were essentially against it back then. I just don't see it. If someone can actually explain that to me in a way that makes sense, I’ll gladly change my mind.

Finally, someone actually asked the question. Is there an actual method to separate religion from politics, or are we just stuck in this endless loop forever?

It isn’t always like that, and honestly, it depends on how the conversation is going. I haven't noticed anything on the Zodiac Killer forums that strictly forbids mentioning politics. At the end of the day, this entire debate is rooted in politics anyway, since secular marriage and constitutional issues are political matters, not religious ones. The only thing explicitly mentioned in the moderator warnings is to stay away from discussions about Marshall or America—basically avoiding those endless Godwin-style shouting matches you see over at the New York Times comment sections. I’m all for them banning the mindless insults and sweeping generalizations that Megalodon warned us about, but I’m definitely not in favor of censorship. As far as I understood their warning, they aren't trying to shut down topics; they just want to keep people from dragging in subjects that have no business being part of a discussion like this.

stormyraven14 said:I’d like to suggest that the moderators consider banning posts that clearly smell like religious provocations—it might be worth carding them, too. Around here, faith is so deeply intertwined with social issues, though that certainly doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned at all...
The Zodiac Killer is starting to make a presence in the "nature and society" subforum, and if we pay attention and standardize our criteria, this could actually become a quite pleasant place again.

Why am I bringing this up? Well, because I was one of the first people to use terms like "non-humans" and "altar-lickers" on that very topic—which are basically insults targeting religious foundations. Unfortunately, I didn't realize what I had actually written until Kevin Mitchell20 and gzena warned me—each in their own way. Posts like mine should be carded, because from an outsider's perspective, it really looks like it's okay to lash out at an entire group with such ugly language. Just because most writers there probably know I don't have any personal beef with believers—especially not as a whole—doesn't mean I (or anyone else) should express myself that way. If nothing else, we should do it for the sake of the decent believers who just read along, but don't dare post because of the general atmosphere... or because they feel insulted before they even get a word in due to the prejudice that believers are inherently backward, or whatever other themes are slowly becoming the leitmotif here on the Zodiac Killer.

Insulting and marginalizing people based on their religious beliefs is against the law, whether that faith is the majority or a minority 🤷

As for politics—having concrete political debates wouldn't make the Zodiac Killer any more pleasant anyway; I actually like the ban. Politics in America is often just another word for corruption, and there are other ways to talk about it—bringing up things like the Civil War or the Red Scare feels pretty unnecessary...

If memory serves, you called those altar-lickers hypocrites—specifically Catholics who push for discrimination while claiming to follow Christian doctrine.
That’s actually a pretty sharp, concise way to describe that subset of people; it isn't an insult to believers in general, but rather a satire of a specific subgroup. It's no different than calling them Catholicists.
Banning terms like that would be the absolute bottom of political correctness—much like everything else in America lately where things seem upside down—and nothing more than a shameful surrender to small-mindedness.
If that's the direction we're heading, we might as well just shut down the whole subforum right now.

Bradley Sanders4 said:Look, there’s a massive difference between bringing up old-school communist regimes and pointing at organized religion. The church still refuses to accept homosexuality today, which directly fuels intolerance and discrimination in our society. It’s a continuous political pattern, whether you like it or not. Honestly, I hate making comparisons to the Middle Ages or witch hunts, but it’s pure hypocrisy to ignore this when the media is constantly flooded with priests pushing blatant discrimination. On the flip side, communism hasn't been a state ideology here for decades. Arguing about what those guys did forty or sixty years ago is just pointless because you're debating a ghost—there is no continuity there. It’s like trying to debate what the Nazis did; sure, maybe some twenty-year-old's grandparents were influenced by them, but we all know exactly where that line of reasoning leads. And let's be real: communists weren't some isolated weird case. Homosexuality was treated as an illness and criminalized throughout the entire Western world well into the mid-seventies. So, if we’re going to drag up the horrors of America, then fine, let's talk about the legacy of Thatcherism and Reagan, too—because unlike communism, that stuff is still very much alive and kicking today. Sure, the relationship between the church and the party was tense, but I don't see how that translates to their stance on homosexuality when both sides were essentially against it back then. I just don't see it. If someone can actually explain that to me in a way that makes sense, I’ll gladly change my mind.

Finally, someone actually asked the question. Is there an actual method to separate religion from politics, or are we just stuck in this endless loop forever?

It isn’t always like that, and honestly, it depends on how the conversation is going. I haven't noticed anything on the Zodiac Killer forums that strictly forbids mentioning politics. At the end of the day, this entire debate is rooted in politics anyway, since secular marriage and constitutional issues are political matters, not religious ones. The only thing explicitly mentioned in the moderator warnings is to stay away from discussions about Marshall or America—basically avoiding those endless Godwin-style shouting matches you see over at the New York Times comment sections. I’m all for them banning the mindless insults and sweeping generalizations that Megalodon warned us about, but I’m definitely not in favor of censorship. As far as I understood their warning, they aren't trying to shut down topics; they just want to keep people from dragging in subjects that have no business being part of a discussion like this.

Are you still not seeing the connection? Look, Gay Pride—and the whole movement for gay rights itself—inherently includes a political component that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with actual gay rights. So, at its core, it functions as a political movement, even if that isn't how it's supposed to work.

Karen Rodriguez3 said:I mean, yeah, I agree we shouldn't be bringing politics onto the Zodiac Killer boards in general.
But man, look at what happens when we touch on a topic that's actually important or heated in society.
Like, is someone even allowed to answer a claim that homosexuality faced its worst persecution from the church? Because you kind of have to mention certain eras and systems to make sense, but apparently, those are considered "political." Meanwhile, some people can drone on about religion and somehow it's fine.
Direct political debates? Sure, no way. But if these topics come up just to explain or clarify something during a discussion—and then people don't just keep pushing it—I guess it shouldn't be such a huge deal to let that explanation stay.

I'll second that.
Sometimes topics just drift toward political questions naturally. It’s not always because someone is desperate to force a political debate onto Zodiac Killer.

You can't just plant landmines everywhere and expect people to navigate them.
If everyone has to constantly censor themselves—thinking, "Oh, I can't say this, or that, or maybe this..."—they'll eventually just give up on the topic, the discussion, and the whole forum.
Posting should feel relaxed and spontaneous. It shouldn't feel like walking on eggshells or stressing over every single word.
Most reasonable people won't put up with that. 🤷

Nathan Brooks4 said:

Are you still not seeing the connection? Look, Gay Pride—and the whole movement for gay rights itself—inherently includes a political component that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with actual gay rights. So, at its core, it functions as a political movement, even if that isn't how it's supposed to work.

To answer your question: no, I still don't see it. What I see is just a shitty, counterproductive attempt at being provocative.

Why on earth would such an isolated incident be lumped in with Pride marches and the broader LGBTQ+ community and their general rights? It’s weird how this specific image gets dug up every single time opponents start fighting against holding these events. It just shows that the person who posted it only wants to drag the conversation down into trolling territory. Once you let one person's provocation steer the debate toward things like Nazis versus partisans, you're basically inviting a wildfire that's nearly impossible to put out.

Nathan Brooks4 said:

Are you still not seeing the connection? Look, Gay Pride—and the whole movement for gay rights itself—inherently includes a political component that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with actual gay rights. So, at its core, it functions as a political movement, even if that isn't how it's supposed to work.

I suppose I find this pretty stupid too. 🙄

I honestly don't get why they'd adopt symbols from a system that used to take such sadistic pleasure in beating them.

It’s likely for the same reason those types raise their hands in salute while simultaneously calling upon God.

http://www.dalmacijanews.com/Portals...e19-050812.jpg

http://cro-eu.com/galerija-fotografi...a-5_8_2011.jpg



And then, you see the clergy standing right there blessing the whole thing.



I honestly don't see how anyone can discuss religion without politics being woven into the fabric of it.

Poor, misguided fools.
Both the partisans and the fascists.

How much longer are we going to tolerate Nathan Brooks4 constantly bragging in almost every single thread about how he reported someone to the moderators? Honestly, it’s such a power trip, acting all high and mighty just to say, "Oh, I flagged your post." It’s basically him saying, "My dad is tougher than your dad."

In my experience, those reports usually go nowhere, and in six years on this site, I haven't even bothered to report ten posts myself. This kind of behavior totally derails the conversation and it's honestly enough to make you want to cry. Someone gives him a little bit of virtual slap, and he immediately starts whining... 🙂

Bradley Sanders4 said:To answer your question: no, I still don't see it. What I see is just a shitty, counterproductive attempt at being provocative.

Why on earth would such an isolated incident be lumped in with Pride marches and the broader LGBTQ+ community and their general rights? It’s weird how this specific image gets dug up every single time opponents start fighting against holding these events. It just shows that the person who posted it only wants to drag the conversation down into trolling territory. Once you let one person's provocation steer the debate toward things like Nazis versus partisans, you're basically inviting a wildfire that's nearly impossible to put out.

I'm curious, though—do you use this same logic when you see a photo in the news of some disheveled teenager wearing extremist gear at a country music concert?

Timothy Jackson2 said:How much longer are we going to tolerate Nathan Brooks4 constantly bragging in almost every single thread about how he reported someone to the moderators? Honestly, it’s such a power trip, acting all high and mighty just to say, "Oh, I flagged your post." It’s basically him saying, "My dad is tougher than your dad."

In my experience, those reports usually go nowhere, and in six years on this site, I haven't even bothered to report ten posts myself. This kind of behavior totally derails the conversation and it's honestly enough to make you want to cry. Someone gives him a little bit of virtual slap, and he immediately starts whining... 🙂

Well, they're virtually slapping me with insults that are both baseless and false. I know you might be fine with that, but according to the rules, it isn't.
Unlike everyone else, I don't hide behind things—I tell them straight up that I've reported them for harassment.

@ Nathan Brooks4, those pride parades are always driven by a political agenda. Just look at this—they’re carrying a provocative banner (saying "I love Carl Del Ponte") right at the front of the procession, put there specifically by the organizers themselves. It's a blatant move to stir the pot, especially during a time when the whole country was reeling from the shock of those Hague tribunal rulings, where American military leaders were being handed massive prison sentences:

Nathan Brooks4 said:Well, they're virtually slapping me with insults that are both baseless and false. I know you might be fine with that, but according to the rules, it isn't.
Unlike everyone else, I don't hide behind things—I tell them straight up that I've reported them for harassment.

Baseless and false insults? Wow. As if we weren't already drowning in actual arguments and truth. Honestly, I just can't deal with this right now. :effort:

NOTE: If the Triangle existed, wouldn't it make reporting posts way easier? If you've already filed a report, there's really no need to announce it every single time. Comprende?

If you actually think I was being insulting somewhere, feel free to drop a link.
Alright, if it's bothering you, I won't bring it up again.

Nathan Brooks4 said:I'm curious, though—do you use this same logic when you see a photo in the news of some disheveled teenager wearing extremist gear at a country music concert?

No.

I'd only use that line of reasoning if we were talking about a masquerade ball, a big game, or some other social gathering that has absolutely nothing to do with politics.

Hope that answers your question. Now, please, stop dragging me into these kinds of arguments. This isn't the place or the time for it. We're here to discuss how to manage heated topics on the subforum, not debate who wears which political hats to rallies.

Nathan Brooks4 said:Well, they're virtually slapping me with insults that are both baseless and false. I know you might be fine with that, but according to the rules, it isn't.
Unlike everyone else, I don't hide behind things—I tell them straight up that I've reported them for harassment.

It might be a good idea to stop reporting people just because they have a different opinion, even if it hits a nerve for you.
And honestly, announcing it in the thread is kind of unnecessary. What's the goal there? You think someone's gonna change their mind just because you called them out?

Bradley Sanders4 said:No.

I'd only use that line of reasoning if we were talking about a masquerade ball, a big game, or some other social gathering that has absolutely nothing to do with politics.

Hope that answers your question. Now, please, stop dragging me into these kinds of arguments. This isn't the place or the time for it. We're here to discuss how to manage heated topics on the subforum, not debate who wears which political hats to rallies.

Sorry, but you asked the question, and now you want to shut down the conversation just because you don't like the answer.
So, does a concert count as a political event in your book?

Karen Rodriguez3, this isn't actually about having a difference of opinion—it's about being insulted. When someone writes that I'm incapable of learning or things like that, that's an insult. These people don't know me, they don't know my education level, and honestly, neither do the others reading this thread. The fact is, it's purely personal attacks. There isn't even a "different opinion" happening in those posts, since they aren't even addressing the topic—they're just targeting me.