Please protect me from Apple's personal bias!

Look, I’m asking for some protection here from the blatant personal bias and total subjectivity shown by the Lumber admin, dustyranger64, regarding the whole Cottage and intellectualism debate.

Thanks!

How exactly does Apple's intolerance toward you show up? I don't see a single strike from them on your record.

Seriously, his intolerance is getting out of hand. It feels like in every single thread, he’s low-key waving cardboard signs and throwing around all sorts of threats at me.

It’s just too much. Too much.

I get that my takes get under his skin, but seriously... do we actually have the right to express our own opinions here?

Michelle Phillips54 said:Where exactly is this supposed "Apple's intolerance" toward you coming from? You don't have a single strike against you from him.

So, what, are you some kind of super-moderator now?

Drew Lee7 said:Honestly, his intolerance is so intense that I feel like he’s implicitly waving cardboard signs and various threats at me in every single thread. I guess.

The moderators use warnings to keep the discussion on track. I guess if you don't actually back up your claims with some logic, they have every right to call you out on it. Maybe that's just how it works.
If you actually have a specific grievance, please back it up with some links. I guess. Maybe.

Drew Lee7 said:I guess you could say I'm an admin. Or maybe not. It’s hard to say for sure.

Smith is in charge of Lumber.

Yeah, I guess I’m an idiot too. Go ahead and roast me over a bonfire if it makes you feel better. ☕

Drew Lee7 said:I know my views get under his skin, but... do we actually have the right to express our opinions here?

We do. But we don't have the right to insult others, which is something you've done across several different discussions and threads now. You haven't backed up a single one of your generalizations with actual evidence, so I guess you're just avoiding the whole point of the discussion.

You started this thread claiming the goal was just sharing preferences, but then you tried to tear everyone else's preferences down without any real reasoning. One of your points was even "Obviously, men are just too afraid to say what they really think."


Prove it.

Until then, you don't have an argument, and you definitely can't use this as one.

Drew Lee7 said:Do we actually have the right to express our opinions here?

No.

On a forum—much like any other media outlet, for that matter—there is no such thing as a protected right to broadcast every single opinion.

Regarding the subject at hand, the mere fact that a thread based on the premise that "women exist solely for sex and domestic chores" is even allowed to persist is a testament to just how incredibly lenient the administration is being. Furthermore, the idea that one could claim personal intolerance within a single thread is, frankly, a joke.

Honestly, I don't get why you haven't been flagged yet—every single one of your posts is just blatant disrespect and discrimination against women.

Kate Foster12 said:To be honest, I don't get why you haven't been flagged yet. Every single thing you post feels like an insult or some kind of discrimination against women.

I think you're right. On top of that, almost everything he writes is just trolling. He manages to tear apart every single thread until there's nothing left. And then he turns around and insults the other users and the mods whenever they ask him to actually back up his crazy claims.

Michelle Phillips54 said:Moderators use warnings to keep the discussion on track. If you aren't backing up your claims with actual arguments, they have every right to call you out on it.
If you actually have a specific grievance, please back it up with some links.

Smith is in charge of Lumber.

Let’s get straight to the point—can someone who lacks basic logic even be a moderator?

Whoever said that just spewed pure nonsense, proving they don't even grasp what an "argument" is. An argument doesn't always have to be an bulletproof fact, but arguing means presenting evidence—whether that evidence holds water or not (which is why we even have the concept of fallacies). But you can't just lazily claim something is wrong without providing proof. To hand out a warning just because I don't fit their narrow definition shows either a total lack of logical understanding or pure malice. Either way, they shouldn't be moderating.

Go ahead, take his statement over to the philosophy subforum and see if I'm right.

And don't even get me started on how he's just enabling a string of intentional distortions and lies just because he shares the same views as those users.

Pathetic!

Nicholas King said:No.

Look, on a forum—just like anywhere else in the media—there isn’t some magical right to broadcast every single opinion.

Regarding this whole topic, the mere fact that a thread based on the idea that "women are just there for sex and to keep things tidy" even exists is proof of how incredibly lenient the admins are being. Besides, claiming there's personal bias on one specific thread is honestly just a joke.

Take this statement: "I think a woman should only exist to provide sex and keep a house clean; if I said that myself, which law am I breaking???"

Discrimination? No. It’s not discrimination because it’s an individual viewpoint regarding private relationships, provided there’s no violence involved or calls for violence.

Get a grip.

Drew Lee7 said:Bottom line: can a moderator actually be someone who doesn't grasp basic logic?

Look, this guy just spit out a bunch of nonsense. He clearly doesn't get what an "argument" even is. An argument doesn't have to be some bulletproof fact, but you actually have to provide evidence! You can present valid points or invalid ones—that's why we even study fallacies—but you can't just lazily claim something is wrong without proving it. Getting a warning just because you don't understand how reasoning works? That shows either a total lack of logic or pure malice. Either way, they shouldn't be moderating.

Just take his statement over to the Philosophy subforum and see if I'm right.

So, basically, it's the same thing I said in the DM:

You claimed several times that you'd proven your theories, but you haven't. We asked for proof. You didn't provide any. It's just trolling.
We gave you page after page to explain your side, even when you were slipping into misogynistic outbursts and stuff like that. We gave you space to voice your opinion, no matter what it was.
But you kept going. Despite the warnings, you started tearing apart entire threads by using "relativism"—which is totally different from actual arguing or proving anything—to dodge anything that didn't fit your absolute views. And again, zero proof provided.
This time it's a warning. Next time, it’s a direct ban. If you keep this up, a permanent lockout is coming fast.

The senior mods and site admins will handle it from here.

Drew Lee7 said:Let’s look at this statement: I believe a woman should exist solely for a man's sexual gratification and to handle the cooking and cleaning—even if I say it out loud, am I breaking any laws???...

Discrimination? Hardly. He isn't discriminating against women—not in any meaningful sense. This is strictly about his own personal views regarding private relationships... and since there’s no violence involved and zero incitement to violence, I don't see the issue.

Cover your head.

Discrimination isn't the same thing as violence. Your views are insulting—and frankly, demeaning toward women...

dustyranger64 said:Basically, just like I said in your DMs:

You’ve claimed several times that you’ve proven your theories when you haven't. You were asked to provide evidence, and you didn't. It's just trolling.
We've given you page after page to explain your position, even though you keep falling into misogynistic rants and stuff like that. We gave you the floor so you could voice your opinion, whatever it may be.
And it kept going until, despite the warnings, you started wrecking entire threads—not just one, but multiple—by using your trolling "relativism" (which is nothing like actual arguing or proving a point) to dismiss everything that isn't part of your absolute truths, which you haven't proven once.
This time you got a warning card. Next time, it’s an outright ban. If you keep this up, a partial ban is coming fast right after.

The moderators and site admins will take it from here.

You're lying!!!

I stated exactly what I believed I had proven. Then you come crashing in like a bandit through the door, shouting, "No, you didn't prove it!" and throwing out an argument that I can easily shut down.

I provided arguments for every single thesis I presented, or I made it perfectly clear that it was just my opinion or a general impression.

On top of all that, I’ve been attacked, insulted, and spat on, and I haven't reported anyone even once because honestly, that's beneath me.

Kate Foster12 said:Discrimination isn't the same thing as violence. Your views are just insulting and demeaning toward women.

Look, "offensive" and "demeaning" are totally subjective. For some folks, seeing a Pride parade on the street is offensive; for other people, Christian theology is offensive. So what?

The most offensive thing to me is watching common sense get absolutely railroaded by stupidity.

And who am I supposed to file a formal complaint with—the Almighty?

Drew Lee7 said:Let’s examine this specific assertion: "I believe a woman's only purpose is to provide sex and ensure there's a clean house and hot meals; even if I say that, am I breaking any laws?"

It is the exact same principle that forbids us from claiming that people of color are inferior or that homosexuals are unwell.

Furthermore, such rhetoric serves as a catalyst for hostility, because myself—alongside many other women participating in this discussion—feel targeted by your open insistence that our role is merely to, and I quote, "spread our legs," cook, and stay quiet.

While you are certainly entitled to your private preferences, attempting to present such views as objective fact is quite another matter entirely.

And you have seen fit to broadcast this sentiment across several different threads just this month.

Drew Lee7 said:Get a grip.

For someone who prides themselves so heavily on their capacity for logical reasoning, it appears your intellectual depth is unfortunately quite shallow.

Drew Lee7 said:You're lying!!!
I laid out exactly what I thought I proved. Then you come crashing in like a bandit through the front door shouting, "No, you didn't prove it!" and tossing out an argument I can just knock down.
Every single point I made had an argument behind it, or at least it was clearly my opinion or just a gut feeling.

Nice try.
Look, you've been warned a few times now. You're totally free to have your own opinions—nobody's stopping you! But you can't act like they're the absolute, one-and-only truth. That's what you keep doing.

Drew Lee7 said:On the flip side, I've been attacked, insulted, and trashed, but I haven't reported anyone once because honestly, it's beneath me.

It feels like your sense of "honor" is this weird, leaky membrane where reporting an insult is too low, but sending someone a private message saying Get lost is perfectly fine.

Drew Lee7 said:The concepts of being offensive or feeling humiliated are entirely subjective. For instance, while some Christians might find Pride parades deeply offensive, many in the LGBTQ+ community might find traditional Christian theology equally offensive—so where does that leave us?

Yes, they are subjective, absolutely. But precisely because they are subjective—much like how there are men who feel insulted if a woman serves them cold soup and subsequently resort to violence—we have established laws to maintain order.

Furthermore, there is a threshold regarding how much one can use a public square (such as this forum) to aggressively push discriminatory rhetoric.

Which is exactly what you are doing systematically. You were recently banned, quite rightfully, after stating on Lumber that we need to reconstruct our societal systems to restrict women's personal liberties.

Yet, here you return, continuing to introduce topics designed to plant those very same ideas. It is the sole focus of your writing.

There is a massive distinction between a user making a lighthearted joke about, say, "women being too bossy," or a harmless quip about "a woman's place in the kitchen," and the persistent pattern of behavior you are exhibiting. There is a vast difference.

And yet, you expect empathy and support? From whom? What exactly is your ultimate objective here?

Sarah Sanders34 said:So then you expect people to be understanding and supportive? From who? What's even the end goal here?

I think his big plan is just to drag humanity back to the "good old days"—you know, arranged marriages (hey, Drew Lee7, if this guy is your idea of a rational dude, we've got problems 😂), women stuck in the kitchen, no school for girls, and all that junk

Sadly, I run into these twisted views in my line of work all the time—guys acting like women are second-class citizens or just less valuable than men. Usually from pretty educated guys, too. But yeah, he's definitely more blunt about it. Look, I appreciate honesty when it's coming from a good place, but this guy? Not even close

Drew Lee7 said:So, I'm asking to be protected from the personal bias and extreme subjectivity of the Lumber admin, dustyranger64, regarding the Cottage and/or intellectual topics. Thanks!

🤣 🤣
keep 'em coming

get outta here—dustyranger64 is a solid mod, and honestly, all the mods on Lumber are super chill

Seriously though, admins, please protect the ladies from future Greenlander rants all over this forum. For good.