The constant trolling about male discrimination in America

I honestly don't get it—and yeah, I’m going to complain about it—but I just can't wrap my head around why, whenever we try to tackle the systemic political dimension of things, like specific laws or how regulations actually play out on the ground, the moderators seem to treat any discussion regarding chauvinism toward men or male discrimination in this way:

- they basically give a free pass to feminist activists to openly troll and insult everyone, and I guess those threads could probably be studied as textbook examples of how to troll a forum

- they allow these discussions to spiral almost immediately into pointless, petty gender wars because of the pressure from those same trolls

- and then, when we talk about chauvinism directed at men, the topic gets swallowed up by some "general" thread created by a moderator with a title that completely misses the point, rather than addressing the actual issue of male chauvinism, opting instead for something like this:

Violence and discrimination against women combined with discrimination against men

So, looking at what happened with this specific topic, the sequence of events went like this, I suppose:

1. I started the thread over in the "Politics" section, mostly because I was pretty fed up with an event that our President attended. I made it very clear that this was a political matter, citing specific Constitutional articles, various laws, and twelve distinct areas where men face sex discrimination here in America. I titled it in a way that suggested we were looking at unconstitutional actions.

2. The moderator very quickly changed the title to "Campaign against violence against women - chauvinism toward men?". Even though I wasn't thrilled about the "unconstitutional" part being stripped away—since the unconstitutionality was clearly laid out via the legal citations in the post—at least that title still touched on the subject somewhat.

3. I appealed to the moderators multiple times, asking them to please tell the feminist activists to stop trolling the thread, but I didn't have any luck there.

4. Then, in the fourth step, the moderator moved the whole thing over to the "close politics" section and renamed it: "Violence and discrimination against women combined with discrimination against men." That title totally severs any connection to the original point; it implies we're discussing discrimination against women—which isn't even the focus of the debate—and it frames the actual issue of male discrimination as just part of some 50/50 trashy gender tug-of-war...

I'm just asking for a fair approach to such a dominant issue. Look, I have nothing against discussing other topics, but I'm asking that we be allowed to have separate threads for the way society and the system treat men, or separate threads whenever it's necessary. This particular problem goes much deeper and affects far more people than, say, debating a historical site or certain cultural signage; it discriminates against an entire gender. The reach of it is honestly terrifying—think about how fathers are demonized in front of their children, or the massive amount of lies and manipulation coming from the highest levels of government—and the implications for our whole society are huge, whether you look at it through a moral, social, or economic lens. This isn't some 19th-century debate about "who's stronger, men or women," but a critique of the actual system we are living in right now.

In my next posts, I'll lay out the specific details that explain all of this.

I think there's actually a fair amount of substance laid out in this particular post, if you have the patience for it:

...and well, here are just a few examples of the kind of society we’ve ended up living in:

So, I was thinking about this whole setup we have with the so-called "gender equality commissioner," that state-appointed position that pulls in something like $500,000 from the taxpayers every single year, and honestly, it feels more like a dedicated advocate for women than anything else. It’s kind of strange when you really sit with it, because she doesn't seem to give a single thought to the rights of men being sidelined, which I guess is the whole point of "equality," right? Instead of actually stepping in to put out the fires of social friction, it feels like the person in charge is actually the one pouring gasoline on them. I mean, it just seems fundamentally absurd to me that the head of an agency meant to balance things out between genders is exclusively a woman—and quite often a hardcore feminist at that. It’s a bit like suggesting that the head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission should be some self-proclaimed skinhead; it just doesn't make any sense if you're looking for actual balance.

So, I was looking through this new proposal for the updated family law—specifically Article 50, paragraph 3—and I guess it’s just one of those things that makes you stare at the wall for a minute, wondering where we actually ended up. It seems like under this new setup here in America, a man is essentially stripped of his right to file for divorce for 21 months for every child involved, which feels like a massive, heavy weight to drop on one side of the equation. Meanwhile, women don't seem to face any of those same hurdles or restrictions at all. It's just... I don't know, it feels incredibly lopsided, and I suppose it’s just more of the same kind of stuff that leaves you feeling pretty cynical about how these legal shifts are being handled lately.

So, I was looking through the current US defense laws—specifically those sections regarding military obligations, Articles 20 and 21 if you want to get technical—and it’s just one of those things that makes you realize how much the government keeps track of everyone, I guess. It says here that for men, the whole military obligation thing basically expires at the end of the calendar year they turn 55, while for women, it wraps up when they hit 50, which feels like such a specific way to track aging, though I suppose it makes sense from a bureaucratic standpoint. Then there's the part about women not being subject to the draft or active service requirements, which is pretty straightforward, whereas men are still technically on the hook for the draft or civilian service whenever the draft is actually active, or even just being entered into the military registry when there isn't an active draft in place. It’s all very orderly, I suppose, but it really makes you think about how these legal frameworks just sit there in the background of our lives, waiting for some shift in policy to suddenly matter again.

It turns out that about 89% of those accusations leveled against fathers regarding child sexual abuse are actually just completely false, which I guess is a pretty staggering number if you really stop to think about it. It seems like these fraudulent claims—whether they involve sexual misconduct or various types of domestic violence—are being weaponized against men just to gain some kind of tactical advantage during messy divorce proceedings. And the real kicker, the thing that really wears you down when you look at the legal landscape, is that there’s practically zero accountability for it; the system almost never punishes people for filing these kinds of false reports, which honestly feels like a massive, gaping hole in our justice system.

I mean, if you look at the numbers, it’s pretty much a given that women walk away with custody in over 95% of divorce cases, which I guess is just how the system is set up here. For a father to even stand a chance at getting the kids, he basically has to be a complete disaster—like, we’re talking about the mother being a literal addict, serving time in prison, or voluntarily signing away her rights, or some other extreme scenario. It feels like there's almost no path forward otherwise. And then you have this recent overhaul of the family law, where they went ahead and scrapped the upper limit on child support payments. It used to be capped at something reasonable per kid, maybe around a few thousand dollars depending on the state, but now? Well, the math just points toward infinity, I suppose. It's all becoming quite a bit much.

I guess if you look closely enough at how things are running nowadays, you start to see this whole society is basically woven together with these gender-based awards and special credits that are reserved exclusively for women, which feels a bit strange if you think about it too long. We’ve got things like this "award for women in science"—even though, let's be honest, in a lot of those fields women already make up sixty or seventy percent of the researchers anyway—and then there’s the whole "Woman of the Year" thing or those "Entrepreneur of the Year" accolades. It’s not just awards, either; there are entire credit lines out there specifically earmarked only for women, whereas men are pretty much left to fend for themselves in the open market without any kind of gender-based assistance or specialized perks. And I don't know, maybe it's just my observation, but ever since the economy started hitting the skids, it seems like the guys are the ones disproportionately losing their jobs, all while being a minority in the student population to begin with. It just feels like the scales are tipped in a way that people don't always want to talk about.

So, I was looking into these so-called "gender equality" agencies—which, let’s be honest, are basically just glorified women's unions masquerading as official institutions—and it’s honestly kind of wild how they write their mission statements. They openly list "women's healthcare" as one of their primary action items in all their official paperwork, which is fine, I guess, but what’s truly bizarre is that you won't find a single mention of "men's health" anywhere in their agendas. It’s like men's well-being just doesn't exist on their radar at all. And if you look at the actual numbers, it’s pretty telling; the average American man lives to about 72, while women live closer to 79. So, women end up drawing from those retirement funds for much longer, even though we’re all paying into the system at the exact same rate. It just feels like a strange imbalance when you really sit down and think about it.

You know, I’ve been sitting here thinking about how some of these high-profile women in the media just casually drop these blatant instances of sexual chauvinism, claiming their gender somehow makes them inherently superior—you hear it all the time, like "women are more conscientious" or "women have proven to be better at X" or "women are just higher quality professionals"—and honestly, it’s wild because there are absolutely zero consequences for it. Not a single hit to their reputation, nothing. It’s like nobody even notices the underlying sexism in those statements, which is kind of surreal when you consider that if the roles were reversed and a man said something equally biased, the social backlash would be immediate and massive. But for this? It’s just silence. Zero reactions. I guess we just live in a world where the rules only seem to apply one way, maybe, or perhaps everyone is just too distracted to see the hypocrisy for what it actually is.

So, I was reading up on this whole mess involving the legal definition of non-consensual sexual intercourse that got shoved into the Penal Code—specifically Article 152, if you want to get technical—and honestly, it feels like one of those things pushed through by activist groups that just fundamentally breaks how our justice system is supposed to work. It’s like they’ve essentially tossed the presumption of innocence right out the window, which is pretty wild when you think about it. Under this setup, once the prosecutor establishes that a sexual encounter actually took place, the entire burden shifts onto the accused to prove that consent was actually given. It’s this weird, inverted logic where you’re basically guilty until you can somehow provide proof of a "yes," which seems like an impossible mountain to climb in a courtroom most of the time. I guess we’re just moving toward a reality where the mechanics of proof are totally flipped on their head, and I don't know, maybe that's just where things are heading now, but it feels incredibly heavy and a bit unsettling to me.

So, I was looking through the penal code earlier—you know how I get when I start falling down those legal rabbit holes—and I stumbled upon Article 116, and it’s just one of those things that makes you sit back and wonder about the logic behind everything, I guess. It turns out that the mutilation of female genitalia is explicitly listed as a criminal offense under the law, which, obviously, makes sense in a vacuum, but then you notice the glaring omission where it doesn't mention anything regarding the mutilation of male genitalia. It's just... absent. It’s such a strange, lopsided way for the statutes to be written, and it really makes you think about how these legal frameworks are constructed and what they choose to prioritize or ignore, though maybe that's just me overthinking it.

So, I was looking at some labor regulations the other day—you know how it goes, digging through all that bureaucratic fine print—and it’s kind of wild how things are structured, I guess. Under the current workplace safety rules here in the States, there’s this specific distinction regarding lifting limits, where a man is technically allowed to hoist up to about 110 pounds, while a woman is capped at around 33 pounds. And the kicker, if you really want to think about the absurdity of it, is that this applies to the exact same job description with the exact same paycheck. It doesn't even account for individual physical stats, which seems a bit arbitrary to me; like, you could have a fifty-year-old guy who's carrying an extra fifty pounds himself, yet he's cleared for the heavy stuff, while a twenty-five-year-old woman who might be significantly stronger or more fit is stuck under that lower limit. It just feels like one of those weirdly rigid systemic things that doesn't quite square with reality, maybe.

12. It seems to me like these various women's advocacy groups are pulling in massive amounts of taxpayer money just to push feminist agendas and, frankly, paint men as the villains in every scenario. Take one organization, for instance—let's call them something like the ACLU or a similar big-name nonprofit—they’re scooping up over a million dollars annually from various public funds. It feels like society is essentially paying a small army of activists to turn around and manipulate the very public that’s funding them.

13. Then you look at the academic side of things, where we have these institutionalized "Women's Studies" programs popping up everywhere in our universities. I mean, there aren't really any "Men's Studies" departments to speak of, which feels a bit lopsided, if you ask me.

14. And the media coverage? It's almost overwhelming. Last year alone, there were 179 organized public campaigns centered on female victims of violence, which translated into over 2,000 news stories across different outlets. But when it comes to male victims, the count is basically zero. It feels like the public is being bombarded with this constant narrative that women are always the victims and men are always the aggressors. I guess it’s all designed to manufacture a sense of an "emergency," creating this illusion of a crisis so they can justify "temporarily" suspending true equality in order to "fix" things by granting women disproportionate rights.

I’m jumping on board with silentridge3 here. As a first step, I’d love to see the thread title updated so there’s absolutely no confusion: we are talking about discrimination against men.

Discrimination against men is happening all over the Western world, and America is right in line with these global trends. If you want to stop ignoring the facts, there are some really insightful books that break down exactly what’s happening in the US and how these shifts in policy will eventually impact us all:

Men on Strike>
The Manipulated Man>
The War Against Men>
Women First, Men Last: The Feminist War Against Men and Its Devastating Consequences>

I just read through this—and honestly, I don't get why the topic was renamed to include violence against women, especially when the author explicitly opened this thread to discuss discrimination against men. It feels a bit off, considering there are already so many discussions centered on violence and discrimination against women 😕
. And I really don't see how this is some sort of "combined" issue... I mean, there are entire studies, specialized research, and established legal mechanisms dedicated to preventing discrimination against women, whereas the author is trying to point out that those same kinds of protections just aren't there for men 😕... it's a different conversation entirely
.

This is just the explanation from page 36 back when these threads merged. I don't really have anything more substantial to add to what was already written then.

Charles Fox10 said:I know what’s bothering you—it’s been bothering me too—but it’s simply impossible to split discussions this way. Once you hit about ten posts, one thread starts mimicking the other. We tried deleting posts, but that feels unfair to the participants; whether they want to or not, they've earned their place in the conversation.

We also have the thread on family law, which is perfectly suited for debating gender discrimination within proposed legal frameworks.

I'll just ask that we avoid ad hominem attacks. After a few of those, the discussion loses its point and we just end up circling the drain.

This is at least the fifth thread regarding gender discrimination, and without fail, these topics eventually bleed into one another during the debate. The moderators are open to suggestions on how to manage two separate threads without them overlapping after ten posts or so.

So far, despite our best efforts, we haven't quite figured it out.

The title isn't the issue. As I mentioned in the thread itself, the title was put together quickly; I'm happy to change it if anyone has a better idea. No one has offered any.

Charles Fox10 said:This is just an explanation from page 36—back when the threads were merged—and I honestly don't have anything more substantial to add to what was written then...

This is easily the fifth time we've seen a thread pop up regarding gender discrimination—and honestly, without fail, these discussions just end up bleeding into one another... It’s getting repetitive. I'm wondering if the moderators might be open to some suggestions on how to manage two separate threads simultaneously without them overlapping after only a dozen posts? Maybe there's a way to keep them distinct...

Despite everything we've thrown at it—all the hard work and effort we've put in—it just hasn't worked out for us yet...

The title isn't even the biggest issue here—I actually mentioned earlier that I just threw it together quickly. If anyone has a better idea, I’m more than happy to change it... but so far, nothing has come up.

Even if we start an identical debate regarding two different—or at least differently perceived—types of discrimination, the conversation about men will naturally attract a completely different crowd than a discussion about women... say, divorced fathers versus pregnant employees or job seekers. Because of that, the tone and the actual substance just won't be the same. Honestly, when people try to force one specific type of discrimination over another during these discussions, we should just call it what it really is: trolling. It’s like when someone tries to push their own brand of pity onto a conversation about affordable housing, or when certain anti-feminists jump into a discussion about men just to bash guys who are actually trying to be decent, supportive fathers despite the psychological toll being taken on them...
Maybe just hire a moderator who actually knows how to handle things—instead of everyone just being so condescending toward one another...
By merging them like this, you've basically killed any chance for people to actually vent—or even just find some decent advice from one another...

Charles Fox10 said:This is just an explanation from page 36 of the thread from back when everything merged, and honestly, I don’t have anything better to add to what was already written then.

This is easily the fifth time we've hit a wall regarding gender discrimination on this forum. Every single time, without fail, these discussions just bleed into one another until they become a massive, tangled mess. I’m curious—are the moderators open to any suggestions on how we can host two separate threads without them inevitably merging into one giant debate after about ten posts?

Despite everything we've thrown at it, we just haven't been able to pull it off yet.

The headline isn't even my biggest concern. I also mentioned in the thread that I just threw the title together quickly. Honestly, I don't mind changing it at all if anyone has a better idea. So far, though, the suggestion box is looking pretty empty!

I’m not really feeling this thread title. It kind of implies that women are the only ones being victimized and that violence only ever happens to them.
There are two distinct ways people experience violence and abuse:
Physical stuff.
Psychological.
Men face psychological abuse from women on a daily basis, and honestly, believe me when I say it can actually feel way worse than physical abuse.

If you ask me, we really ought to split these topics up:
1. Violence and discrimination against women
2. Violence and discrimination against men.
The mods have plenty of tools at their disposal and should be stepping in to penalize any trolling. Honestly, if a comment has nothing to do with the actual topic, it's just trolling.

The issue is that when these "marginalized" topics come up, the trolls are out in full force. You won't find any "feminist warriors" there, yet they’re always busy making accusations.

I’ve said it a hundred times already—there isn't a single serious discussion where people actually share their lived experiences of being screwed over by the courts, Child Protective Services, or other government agencies.

For instance, I could easily write an entire thread about how the legal system failed me, but there are so many victims of judicial dysfunction that we could have a dedicated topic just for that.

So why don't the men facing discrimination open a forum for us to see actual, concrete cases instead of this biased, theoretical finger-pointing? Instead, we just get ten different threads that all say the exact same thing.

Sam Wright21 said:The issue is that on those specific threads, the people claiming to be "victims" end up doing most of the trolling. You don't see any "feminist warriors" there—they just imagine them existing...

I’ve said it a hundred times already—there aren't any serious discussions where people actually share their lived experiences of being screwed over by the courts, Child Protective Services, or other government agencies.

For instance, I could write an entire post about how much the legal system messed me up, and honestly, there are enough victims of the court system to fill dozens of threads...

So why don't the men facing discrimination open a thread like that so we can see actual, concrete cases? , instead of just making biased, generalized assumptions. Right now, it's just ten different threads that all say the exact same thing.

Well, someone actually did start a thread like that once, but they merged it with a "women's issues" topic before anyone even had a chance to respond properly or read through it... 🤷
I think that's exactly what your complaint is referring to... 😕

Charles Fox10 said:The title isn't even the main issue here, and I actually mentioned earlier that the headline was just slapped together quickly, so I’m more than happy to change it if anyone has a better suggestion. But apparently, nobody had any ideas.

To put it bluntly, that’s just not true.

I mean, I actually voiced my protest and made a formal suggestion in two separate posts:

Post 852:

Post 888:

I tried to be civil and polite—I really didn't want to have to start a whole thing in the complaints section—so I waited for two days after those two posts. This is the post in question:

silentridge3 said:I am lodging an official protest against changing the title because it completely alters the entire meaning of the discussion. Besides, even the original title wasn't particularly original, and that was a creation of the moderators (though at least it stayed on topic). As it stands now, this is just some messy mix of gender wars rather than a serious political discussion regarding the systemic gender discrimination men face in America, which is being driven by manipulations and lies surrounding "violence" and certain "initiatives."

If it becomes necessary, I will open a thread in the "complaints" section. I hope it doesn't come to that.

Here is what I suggest for the title (just a reminder: I am the one who started this thread):

"The 1000 Anti-Violence Initiatives: A Tool for Discriminating Against Men in America."

I wouldn't use a question mark in that title, since I’ve already demonstrated through various articles of the Constitution, different laws, and regulations that this discrimination is a reality.

So, yeah, that was the idea for the title.

Charles Fox10 said:This is easily the fifth thread discussing gender discrimination, and without fail, these threads always end up merging during the debate. The moderators seem totally open to finding ways to keep two threads running without them overlapping after about ten posts.

I think the problem with how the moderators are handling this subject is that they just don't grasp its political or broader importance. For some reason I can't quite wrap my head around, the mods seem to find it problematic that there are "as many as" five different threads covering various aspects of systemic—and I stress *systemic*, legal, and state-level, which makes it a political issue—discrimination against men and chauvinism directed toward them.

They would probably take a thread like "Chauvinism in the 'Protect Victims of Predatory Bank Loans' Initiative" or "Romani discrimination" seriously, but when it comes to the discrimination of men, they just brush it off as some trivial nonsense about "men's versus women's issues"...

When it comes to things that aren't even that important, I guess it’s totally normal for the mods to let a million different threads pop up about the same old thing—you know, like how every single time Joe Biden sneezes, it becomes its own massive political debate, or every little scandal involving Barack Obama gets its own dedicated thread instead of just being lumped into one big "all affair all politician" mega-thread or something like that.

But look, if we, the male victims of the system, are supposed to just roll over and accept this kind of moderation style, then I suppose they could at least leave one single thread untouched, maybe one with a clear focus on the discrimination and chauvinism directed at men. But apparently, even that seems to be asking too much...

Charles Fox10 said:So far, despite everything we've tried, we haven't really pulled it off.

I'm saying this honestly and without any malice, I really don't see any actual effort from the mod team. These specific topics—the ones dealing with discrimination against men—they just get left completely unmoderated. Off-topic nonsense isn't deleted or penalized, and those feminist trolls who systematically insult people and derail the whole discussion? They never seem to get banned (I can't recall seeing a single warning, honestly), so eventually, every significant issue just devolves into exactly what the mods seemingly intended: some sort of low-level, generic gender warfare where the original point gets lost in the noise.

If the titles were actually straightforward, if the posts were actually moderated, and if off-topic rambling, insults, and trolling were actually punished, then maybe these important political questions could actually be discussed properly.

Shout out to all the brave women standing up against the constant downplaying of violence against women—something that's been going on for centuries. 👍

silentridge3 said:...........To is, if I may use a more colorful expression, simply untrue.
................

🤣Great. 🤣Though it probably won't matter much since we missed your point on this topic entirely, but there it is.

So you waited three days, you say? Then you open a thread here. Fine by me. But if we've already waited three days, what's one more day to actually coordinate these topics?

Charles Fox10 said:🤣That's great, 🤣 though I suppose it won't mean much to you that we missed your objection on this subject, but there it is.

So, you say you waited three days before starting a thread here, and honestly, as far as I'm concerned, that's fine, but if it really took three days, maybe we could have had, I don't know, an extra day to coordinate on these topics.

Sure, besides that one day you need for your little discussions, I’ll go ahead and give you two more.

It’s all in the interest of making a sound decision and finally grasping the sheer weight of the issue—you know, actually understanding what the topic is even about.

In the meantime, while you guys are busy thinking, I see you're also busy moderating that other thread (someone in here actually shrunk my font size in one of the topics), all while leaving a title that basically implies women are being discriminated against. But nobody is even talking about female discrimination in that thread, which makes sense, because systemic discrimination against women in America just doesn't exist—whereas discrimination against men is pretty firmly baked into our laws, regulations, and court rulings and everything else.

Look, I don't mean to be blunt, but I feel like you might be complaining just for the sake of it. I spend a ton of time lurking on that thread, and honestly, the way the mods handle things seems pretty fair to me, I guess.

Jesse Cooper97 said:Look, I don't mean to be rude, but I honestly think you're complaining for the sake of complaining. I spend a fair amount of time lurking on that thread, and from what I can see, the moderators seem to be doing an incredibly fair job of keeping things in line.

Come on, please, let's try to keep the trolling to a minimum here... at least in this corner of the internet...🙄

I guess I should point out this one incredibly active feminist troll—she’s basically a thread-killer (she even showed up right here)—named Ginger. She dropped these two posts just yesterday evening; Chuck, the moderator, saw them (he actually posted right after her), but he didn't say a word, which is kind of telling:

Ginger said:
Workers of the world, unite!

So, where are you all wasting this obviously excessive energy of yours?
Where do you even get this much energy from? You're clearly all fakes. ☕

And you, you absolute scumbag Scandinavian with your endless walls of text... you're clearly doing just fine, nothing short of a total "feminist"...

Fake, fake, fake.

Ginger said:
You people are so dim-witted that I actually have to respond to you one by one.

I'll say it again: I don't know men this stupid in real life,

... because most of your replies are just the product of some neurotic impulse and have absolutely nothing to do with actual logic.

So, no deletions, no bans... (though I suppose this is just the thousandth similar post from this Ginger woman...)

It seems to me that these feminist warriors only join these discussions to throw insults and troll; meanwhile, the moderators mostly just sit there and watch (at least, I don't recall seeing any action taken). I guess the whole impulse behind these feminist agitators is to dump as much trash content as possible, make the topic look pointless, insult anyone trying to contribute constructively, and bait as many people as they can into those low-level, classic gender wars where we all end up looking equally bad, effectively burying the actual discussion about male discrimination. It feels like the interest of feminists from those heavily government-subsidized women's organizations is to ensure the truth about the actual state of gender equality in America stays hidden. It's honestly a bit unclear why the interests of the moderators and the Forum seem to align so perfectly with the agenda held by Ginger and these other feminist trolls.

stormyraven14 said:Even if we start an identical debate about two different types of discrimination (or at least they are perceived differently), the topic of male discrimination will attract a different crowd—say, divorced fathers—compared to discussions on female discrimination, like pregnant employees or job seekers. Therefore, the debate won't be the same in tone or content. Forcing "one type" of discrimination into the other during discussions should simply be called what it is: trolling. Like when someone tries to push their own brand of pathos onto a discussion about safe houses, or when anti-feminists jump into a "male-centric" topic just to bash efforts by decent guys trying to be good fathers despite the mental toll.
Find a moderator who knows how to handle this instead of being condescending toward both sides.
By merging them like this, you've killed any chance for either group to vent or find actual advice.

And how exactly do you know that?😉

Because... they already vented (meaning the thread author lost ground by constantly opening the exact same topics on the Politics board). Constantly.

He (Chuck) didn't do anything wrong; he seemingly made a diplomatic move to keep all parties satisfied and then left room for dialogue (just look at the combined thread title and the context).

To claim that discriminating against men consists of women's advocacy groups protesting for women's rights in Washington, D.C. is such an absurd idea, I don't even know where to begin.😉 A legitimate protest for a legitimate cause isn't discrimination against anyone else. Or is it? On the surface, that's what the author claims.

silentridge3 said:I’m pointing to a highly active feminist troll who just trashes any topic she touches—she even showed up right here—Ginger. She dropped these two posts yesterday evening; our moderator Chuck saw them (he posted right after her) and didn't say a word:

....

Meanwhile, you were clearly seen by everyone commenting on this fake propaganda—basically hateful, anti-woman rhetoric on this site—and you actually wrote (on that thread once it was merged) that you have no intention of stopping.

False quotes, fake statistics that lack proof, and when anyone asks for actual data or solid arguments, the response is just "Google it if you care" or "It's not my job to prove anything."

Isn't that the definition of trolling? Or constantly reopening the same inflammatory threads where "innocent" people get caught in the crossfire while the supposed "source of the problem" remains untouched?

(Though, whether you're doing this intentionally to provoke or if you genuinely believe what you write, it seems that to you, legitimate women's protests are actually discrimination against men, based on everything you've written about it.)

So, there's the real issue: how do we protect other users from this, or where exactly do we draw the line for "freedom of speech" regarding this kind of behavior from users in a public space?