Unacceptable bias and power tripping by the Lowe's moderator

The moderator over at the Lowe's subforum, Jack Bishop94, just banned me. No explanation, no warning, nothing. If she actually thought I broke some rule—though I don't think I did—it felt pretty arbitrary and dictatorial.

The supposed reason was that a few users complained about me. Since I was just sticking to statistical facts and drawing conclusions based on them in a thread I started myself, I guess the only real reason for the ban is that people just can't handle my perspective.

It makes me wonder: does Reddit intend to be an echo chamber where moderators kick out anyone who disagrees with the status quo, or is it actually meant to be a place for debate and maybe a little bit of lively discussion?

Bottom line, if a handful of complaints is all it takes to justify a ban, then I’m filing a formal complaint regarding Jack Bishop94's moderation and requesting she be removed from her position.

Best,
mistymason1

Before Jack Bishop94 chimes in and we really get into this, are you positive this was all about just one single issue? Like, are you sure that's the only reason you were kicked out?

First off—there’s this thing called Real Life. Everyone here, including the mods, supermods, and admins, actually has one. That’s why I haven't been around...

Second—this isn't just about one single thread. It's pretty much every post you make. To most people on here, regardless of gender, your posts come across as nothing but attacks on women and insults toward anyone who doesn't see things exactly your way.

Kate Ward16 said:First off—there’s such a thing as life, or Real Life. Everyone here, from the regular users to the mods and admins, has one. That's why I'm just getting back to the forum now...

Second—it isn't just about one thread. It’s more like almost every post of yours. Most people here clearly found them annoying because they saw them as an attack on women, or just an insult to anyone who doesn't think exactly like you do.

Pathetic arguments. Name one single sentence where I actually insulted someone. If it weren't funny and sad, it would be tragic. Maybe it's just tragicomic in the end. Anyway... let's go through this.

First, if I had actually insulted anyone, I'd get a warning, a yellow card, or maybe a three-day ban. If I did, but I didn't...

Second, we're on Lowe's. I haven't seen anyone sanctioned for threads much more aggressive than mine. I made my thread intentionally provocative to get more readers and discussion—I never hid that during the debate. Besides, the thread wasn't deleted; I was just kicked out. Also, women started joining in with views similar to mine, experiencing some pretty harsh insults, yet the guys insulting them didn't even get a warning. Meanwhile, I don't get a warning, I just get banned. I guess that's what they call democracy. 🙄

During the debate, I led with facts and statistics as my premises, then drew conclusions from them. A few times, I even invited people to disprove my logic if it was flawed. Nobody did. Instead, the responses were just stuff like "stupid," "ridiculous," or "generalization"—even though I explained exactly why I wasn't generalizing. No one, not even you, Jack Bishop94, bothered to actually refute my points. It was just easier to shut me up.

Well, that's not going to work.

P.S. You have to distinguish between an ad hominem attack and criticizing an opinion. They are worlds apart, even if they look similar sometimes. So, Jack Bishop94, saying "you're stupid" isn't the same as saying "your opinion is stupid."

The facts are actually the opposite—people were busy calling me primitive, narrow-minded, and backwards in that thread. Honestly, those labels don't bother me at all.

But I'm not going to lose my mind over this, if you'll excuse me.

Best,
mistymason1

You’re the only one stuck on this one point, even though it was clearly stated that isn't what this is about... but hey, if you want to keep going, go ahead...
The issue is you dismiss anyone who has a different opinion or perspective than yours. I guess you think that's just how people should talk, but I don't.
Besides, you just dig your heels in like always. You don't care what anyone else thinks. So fine, let everyone above me take a look at how this is going down and decide if removing you is justified or not. I can't just belittle people or throw passive-aggressive insults like you do—that's always been against the rules for me. Long story short, I stand by what was done. Your way of communicating just doesn't belong in this PDF.

mistymason1 said:Look, if I’ve actually offended someone here, then the standard protocol should apply—you know, a warning, a yellow card, maybe a three-day suspension, whatever. If that's how this works, fine. But honestly? I haven't done anything wrong.

Look, if a moderator gives you a heads-up a few times across different threads—whether they’re asking everyone to chill out or telling you to stop using neon font colors—you need to take the hint. Just because they let a post slide without immediately hitting the ban hammer or issuing a formal strike doesn't mean they aren't serious. A warning is still a warning, even if it's polite.

mistymason1 said:Secondly, I’ve been hanging out on Lowe's for a while now, and I haven't seen anyone get sanctioned or hit with anything nearly as critical as my post. To be fair, I didn't even try to hide it during the debate—I intentionally framed it that way just to spark more interest and get people talking. Also, just to set the record straight, the thread wasn't deleted; I was simply kicked out.

Same question as before: are you really certain that just one single thread was responsible for the partial ban?

mistymason1 said:On top of that, a bunch of women have started chiming in with views just like mine, only to get hit with the most brutal insults imaginable. And the kicker? The people throwing those insults didn't even get a warning, whereas I didn't get a warning either—I just got kicked out entirely. I guess that's what they call "democracy" these days. 🙄

When Jack Bishop94 argued that there were just too many people on this forum, you called that logic pathetic. Now, here you are, doing the exact same thing by pointing out how many women have chimed in to back up your side.

mistymason1 said:When I first jumped into the debate, my strategy was pretty straightforward: I led with the hard data and statistical facts as my foundation, then built my conclusions directly from there.

Statistics and facts have become something that—at least over at Lowe's—get tossed around, twisted, and weaponized whenever someone feels like being a jerk. You see it everywhere, from those classic "at least 90% of people..." claims to the inevitable "I read it online, it's a statistic" line. (And you know exactly which "leftist" sites they're talking about.)

mistymason1 said:I’ve said it more than a few times now: if my logic is flawed, please, just call me out on it. But instead of anyone actually tackling my points, I just get hit with stuff like "that's stupid," "this is ridiculous," or some sweeping generalizations—even after I took the time to explain exactly why what I was saying wasn't a generalization in the first place. No one has even tried to debunk my actual arguments. Not even you, Jack Bishop94. It feels like it’s just easier to try and shut me up than to actually engage with what I'm saying.

I’ve never really seen him as someone you could just shut down. To me, he’s the kind of guy who always ends up being right, no matter how much people try to argue with him. Maybe that's just my own bias talking, though.

mistymason1 said:Well, that’s just not happening.

I’m starting to think we’re looking at a classic hierarchy here: users, then mods, then the admins. Basically, if you find yourself clashing with a moderator's call, you don't just get to say "nope" and call it a day—the final word actually sits with the higher-ups.

mistymason1 said:The facts actually tell a completely different story. I’ve been getting grilled left and right in this thread, with people calling me primitive, narrow-minded, and backwards. Honestly? Those labels don't bother me one bit. You can say what you want; it doesn't change the reality of the situation.

Look, there’s a report button for a reason. Just because you personally don't mind being insulted doesn't mean everyone else is going to take your posts—or mine—the same way. People aren't necessarily going to just shrug it off and move on.

Kate Ward16 said:It seems like you just dismiss anyone who has a different perspective or opinion than yours, and you somehow think that's an acceptable way to communicate, though I'm not so sure about that.
And honestly, you just dig your heels in and stick to your guns like you always do, acting like nobody else's input matters one bit...

That’s exactly the point—you’re stuck in your own little bubble, and anyone who dares to point out a flaw in your stats or your logic gets labeled as ignorant, uneducated, or whatever other insult you can come up with. Not to mention, on this the topic you've latched onto now, you were being quite condescending toward every woman who doesn't fit your "normal" idea of childbirth 🙄

To make a long story short—I think you've managed to annoy pretty much everyone who's typed a single word in that thread 🤣

hollowmason64 said:Exactly—you're just playing out some script in your head, and anyone who dares point out the flaws in your stats or your logic gets labeled as an idiot, uneducated, or whatever other insult you can pull together... not to mention how you were acting all high and mighty on that the topic you've latched onto now, insulting every woman who doesn't fit your "normal" definition of childbearing 🙄

To make a long story short—it looks like you managed to irritate pretty much everyone who even breathed in your direction over there. 🤣

I agree 🙏

I agree with the mods too; honestly, they aren't usually that demanding 😁

but look at what he was pulling on this thread 😲
a permanent ban, not a partial one ☕

Kate Ward16 said:You’re just fixated on one single thread, even though it was clearly stated that isn't actually what this is about... but hey, if you want to stay stuck there, go ahead...
The issue is that you dismiss anyone who holds a different opinion or perspective than yours. I guess you think that's an acceptable way to communicate, I don't know.
Besides, you just insist on your own way like always, acting like nobody else's input matters. So fine, let everyone above me look at how this is going down and decide if removing you is fair or not. I mean, I can't just belittle people or use veiled insults like you do; that's always been unacceptable on this forum. Long story short—I fully stand by what was done, because your style of communication just doesn't fly with the rules.

Anyone can say something and stay out of trouble. But saying something backed by actual arguments? That takes a certain level of competence.

I get that my way of debating might not be everyone's cup of tea, since I can be blunt sometimes, but maybe you just don't really grasp what constitutes an insult. Attacks or ad hominem fallacies are ungrounded, derogatory comments aimed at someone's immutable traits; things like calling someone stupid based on gender, or making jabs about age, race, or socioeconomic status, etc.

On the other hand, calling someone's opinion stupid might be a bit harsh, but it isn't an insult. And saying an opinion is senseless or illogical—which is all I've actually done here—if you consider that an insult, then we're looking at some brand new definition of an insult that would probably need to be added to a new Penal Code.

And thirdly, here's someone else whose posts have been infinitely more condescending toward other users than mine ever were. It's almost bold of them to even show up here.

We really have all types here.

Matthew Anderson said:1. If a moderator issues a warning across several different threads (like asking the group to calm down, or changing text color), that should be taken as a warning. Just because we leave a post up without banning or flagging absolutely everyone doesn't mean the warning wasn't serious.

2. Same question as before: are you sure it was just one thread that led to a partial ban?

3. Regarding the aunt's argument about the number of forum members being too high, you called it pathetic, yet now you're doing the same thing by claiming a specific number of female users support your views.

4. Statistics and facts are something that, at least on this site, get twisted and manipulated whenever it suits someone. From those famous "at least 90% of people..." claims to "I read it somewhere, it's the stats." (and then citing some "leftist" website).

5. I wasn't calling you someone who can be silenced, but rather someone who thinks they're always right, no matter how much people disagree. Maybe it's just a subjective impression.

I guess there’s a hierarchy here: user, mod, super-mod, admin. So if you disagree with a moderator's call, you don't just decide "it won't happen"; that's up to the higher-ups.

6. There's a report button for a reason. Just because you aren't bothered by insults doesn't mean others will take your (or my...) posts the same way, or that they'll just shrug it off.

1. I'll say it again—quote a specific insult of mine, and we can talk. If it really was an insult, I'll apologize. Anyone can overstep. I don't think I've attacked anyone personally; I've always just reacted to people's opinions. But maybe I'm missing something obvious, so if you think I did, enlighten me.

2. Look, I didn't have much free time back on the old boards, so I'm not sure what other topics you're talking about. Don't lie or twist things. That's just how those Stalinist-style smear campaigns work.

3. I called those arguments pathetic because using a mob mentality as a counter-argument is basically a logical fallacy. If a crowd wants a lynching, that's not enough for you to justify attacking someone. That's just a public shaming. And you clearly missed the point—that was a counter-argument intended to show how nonsensical her logic was. It shouldn't matter who holds which view or how many people agree with them. I'm being accused of insulting people, and I'll say it again: if anyone here actually thinks I did, just show me the quote and I'll apologize if I truly crossed a line.

4. My dear Sophia Thomas7, the statistics I used are official government data from the United States. If you're questioning those, then I might have to pray for you, even though I'm not religious.

5. That's just your subjective impression, which you're certainly entitled to.

6. Someone getting offended doesn't make something untrue. Tell a thief he's a thief and he'll probably sue you for libel. He might even try to jump you. I suspect that's all this is—just a bit of virtual violence from certain users who can't handle the truth.

Daniel Ward87 said:mistymason1, you're still being one-sided.

Same goes for you. Make an actual argument. Unless you think moderators don't need any justification for their actions.

I'm not saying I have to be sweet, but if you think it's okay to kick someone just because they have a different opinion than the rest, others might not see eye to eye with you.

mistymason1 said:Look, I’ll say this one more time: if you think I’ve crossed a line, go ahead and point out a specific insult of mine. Quote me directly. If it really was an insult, fine—I’ll apologize. We all have those moments where we overstep. Personally, I don't believe I've ever resorted to ad hominem attacks; I've always made it a point to react to people's arguments rather than who they are. But hey, maybe I'm just being oblivious here. If you truly feel I've been offensive, please, enlighten me.

hollowmason64 wrote the exact same thing I did. The way you talk to people—refusing to let anyone else be right, combined with that "I don't have to be likable" attitude—is honestly pretty insulting. It’s especially grating when it comes to how you treat women. Just look at your posts regarding one-night stands or that whole mess about "sluts" that we actually had to lock the thread over because of you and one other user.

When it comes to ad hominem attacks, sure, that's one way to go about it—but there’s actually this other sneaky variation. It's where you don't even bother trying to discredit the person directly; instead, you just try to manipulate the situation so people feel like they *have* to accept your argument. I'm assuming you're already aware that this falls under the whole ad hominem umbrella.

mistymason1 As specified by:
Look, I haven't spent nearly enough time on this site to know what other topics you're talking about, so please, let's be real here—don't twist my words. Playing games like that is exactly how those old-school Stalinist smear campaigns used to work.

I already explained it to you above—my aunt already explained it to you, and hollowmason64 already explained it to you. I really love how everyone is trying to discredit my argument, especially that lovely little "stop lying and stop acting out" bit.

mistymason1 said:I've already said it: those arguments are absolutely pathetic. It’s basically just an invitation to a public lynching.

It’s honestly such a low blow to say, "Oh, look, some users have come forward to support my view." It just feels so desperate.

mistymason1 said:4. My dear Sophia Thomas7, just so you know, the statistics I was using... The official numbers don't lie. If you consider the history of the Republic of America—or even its former days as part of the old federation—to be mere "statistics," then I’ll say a little prayer for you, even though I’m not exactly a religious person.

Look, I was critiquing the way statistics are used on unknown, not just your specific use of them. But since we’re picking at each other, let’s be honest: you absolutely love leaning on stats as if they're some kind of ultimate authority.

mistymason1 said:6. Just because someone takes offense doesn't mean what you said isn't true. If you call a thief a thief, he'll probably sue you for libel. He might even try to get physical with you. I suspect that's exactly what's happening here—just a digital version of certain forum users getting violent because they can't handle the truth.

Here’s how it works: if a moderator receives complaints about a user's posts, we review them, and if necessary, we take action. (Honestly, we’re pretty lenient here, especially compared to the chaos over at unknown.) When these complaints keep coming in—assuming there's actual merit to them and enough people are complaining—we move to a partial ban (the lighter option) or a permanent ban (the heavy hitter). Just because you don't think your posts are offensive doesn't mean everyone else reading them will see it your way.

The moderators clearly decided that your writing style is disruptive to the community and that a partial ban is necessary.

mistymason1 said:Same goes for you. Provide an actual argument. Unless, of course, you believe the forum moderators don't need any justification for their actions.

You've been given plenty of explanations, but you're sticking to that same pattern you use on unknown; you refuse to accept anyone else's opinion, you dismiss other arguments as "pathetic garbage"—which you frame as attacking ideas rather than people—and ultimately, you end up attacking me by claiming I'm using "Stalinist denunciation tactics."

I agree with the aunt's decision; I think continuing this debate with you is just counterproductive.

Best,

Sophia Thomas7

Matthew Anderson said:Look, when we're talking about vaccines, you clearly love using statistics as an appeal to authority.

Statistics—unless they've been doctored, of course—are definitely an "appeal to authority" 😁. Still, they’re certainly a more solid argument than anyone’s subjective value judgments.

It feels like a repeat of that situation with the Law, where I suppose someone feels compelled to say something in defense of the opposing side—regardless of how distasteful that "other side" might be based on every other metric. I remember mistymason1 as being a rather obnoxious and arrogant forum user with incredibly rigid views; I’ve had my fair share of heated exchanges with him. He’s the kind of person I wouldn't want to be even in the same congressional district with, let alone grab a coffee with, so... yeah.

But.

Since I can't see deleted posts, I could only look at what he was supposedly "doing" on that thread about the USO; I didn't comb through all fifty pages, but looking over the last ten, I couldn't find any evidence of "behavioral issues." Whenever someone claims a sentence is offensive, one really ought to keep Tyndall's rule in mind, which suggests that even if you write idiotic things again—meaning, even stating that someone is repeatedly writing nonsense—it isn't necessarily labeling the person themselves as an idiot (and until that rule is overturned, my personal confusion regarding how one is even supposed to identify an idiot if repeated nonsense isn't a reliable sign, remains my own personal problem 😁).

All in all, the guy got singled out because people are bothered by his stances and his refusal to tolerate opposing viewpoints. It's ironic, really, because those very "people" demonstrated the exact same thing—intolerance toward his views. Anyone who is incapable of either crushing his arguments (which are riddled with massive holes) or simply accepting them as his right to hold, should probably donate their computer to the nearest orphanage and spend the rest of their lives offline, rather than whining about being offended and demanding that mistymason1 be silenced.

Last, but not least: a quick search of the unknown would easily turn up instances of very similar—if not identical—behavior and rhetoric, just with the opposite ideological slant; examples of equally intolerant, arrogant, and haphazard advocacy for total sexual liberalism and "liberality." The fact that such views are, dare I say, dominant on this site, nor the fact that those against them (which, in my estimation, includes rational people and a few others—however much they might personally irritate me) are still capable fighters who can wage their own battles without calling for censorship, does not make this disciplinary action any less shameful.

If there were actual examples of direct personal insults (which brings me back to "Tyndall's rule on idiots") or severe violations of the rules that fundamentally change the context (and we haven't seen any such examples here on this Penal Code thread), then the situation would be different—but even then, it's unclear why the whole mess couldn't have been handled with simple warnings or bans.

Otherwise, you can turn yourselves upside down, but this will still look like a vendetta against someone for what he says, rather than how he says it. Those who are silenced and offended (and seemingly incapable of engaging in forum debate) can simply put him on ignore; those who actually know how to handle this can methodically deconstruct every single one of his sentences—isn't that the whole point of a forum? Therefore, these kinds of crackdowns and this nurturing of forum tribalism are utterly pointless.

Matthew Anderson said:1. I guess I should probably mention that everything seems to be moving along. It’s mostly just steady progress, nothing too flashy. Maybe. How you address someone depends on the situation, I guess. It really just comes down to the setting.

2. Not allowed. Maybe he’s right, but that whole "I don't have to be nice" bit is definitely offensive. Especially the way he talks about women. If you look at his posts on the one-night stands thread or that "sluts" topic—which, by the way, we had to lock down because of him and one other user—it's pretty clear.

As for the ad hominem stuff, yeah, that’s exactly what an ad hominem is. But I guess there’s another version where you don't go after their credibility directly, but... You think so? Maybe. I guess I have to concede your point. I assume you realize this falls under an ad hominem attack.

And then comes the inevitable part—that pathetic little line where they claim, "Oh, look, some users have come forward to support my view." Typical.

That was a critique of the statistics used at the unknown, not just yours. But since we're already nitpicking, I guess it's worth noting you tend to lean on stats quite heavily whenever you want to sound like an authority.

If a moderator gets complaints about certain posts, we’ll review them and take action when necessary. We're probably being pretty lenient here, especially considering how bad that PDF file was. If these complaints keep piling up and there's actually a valid reason behind them, then we'll step in. If enough users file a complaint... They might opt for a partial ban—which is a bit more lenient—or they could go straight to a permanent one if things get serious.

Just because you don't think your posts are offensive doesn't mean anyone else reading them will agree.

The moderators apparently decided my writing style was too disruptive for the PDF, so they figured a partial ban was necessary. I guess.

You got some solid answers here, but you’re still sticking to that exact same style you have over on unknown. You just don't accept other people's opinions., You call someone else's arguments "misery and poverty," which seems like you're just packaging that as an attack on their opinion. I guess. And you're not even attacking my argument anymore—you’re just coming after me personally, claiming I’m using tactics from some Stalinist denunciation regime.

I think my aunt made the right call. Honestly, continuing this debate with you seems pretty counterproductive.

Best regards,

Sophia Thomas7

All you're doing is screaming with a blunt knife.

Do you even realize how nonsensical that was? I assume you were trying to comment on my tone. It seems like my delivery is distracting you from the actual substance—the arguments themselves. I get it; there are plenty of ways to frame a point, and mine might not be everyone's cup of tea. But that’s my business. Besides, do you really think my style is accidental? If you look at my last thread—which, by the way, is one of the most read and discussed topics here—you'll see. It was getting interesting, too, right as the usual echo chamber here started to crack. Then suddenly, I'm being shut out because of complaints from maybe three women. One of them was clearly just trying to needle me (or "troll," as you people like to say—I hate that imprecise term), and I just gave her a taste of her own medicine without being insulting. The other one was busy being condescending and refusing to accept anyone else's views. If I were a killjoy like her, I’d report her myself. But honestly, I think she knows how to defend her own attitude. At the end of the day, it's everyone's right to disagree, provided they have valid counterarguments.

Another nonsense point—how exactly am I supposed to "not allow" someone else to be right? The whole phrasing is just absurd. When you're arguing with someone who disagrees, you don't "allow" them to be right; you just believe your own arguments hold water and theirs don't. Besides, there are plenty of pseudo-arguments floating around that neither you nor unknown seem to take seriously. But let's get to it. To keep this from spiraling, maybe we should step away from the talk about useless junk and stick to the actual topic where I was supposedly being offensive and got kicked. I’ll say it again: point out a single sentence where I actually insulted anyone. If you can't, then you're just being completely unprofessional and biased. Even Nicholas King saw that, and I don't even like him, yet he managed to stay objective—something you and aunt clearly can't do.

3. I've already explained this—and I’ve said it several times in this thread—if my premises or conclusions were invalid, then refute them. Don't just kick me out. It's what Nicholas King pointed out; I was silenced simply because some people don't like me. And I haven't used any ad hominem arguments anywhere else. Go ahead, point out a single one. Even if I did, it was on the margins and only in response to the pile of them directed at me.

4. Like I said—that was just a pseudo-argument to show that yours and your aunt's are the same.

5. No. I use statistics as statistics, as facts. The way they're used can be wrong or manipulative—so again, prove that I manipulated anything.

6. Pure argumentum ad numerum

7. That's true, but it doesn't prove anything. Offensiveness is subjective; it varies socially and individually. Just look at political cartoons or dark humor contests—one person sees provocation, another sees an insult. 🤷

8. Just because someone believes something doesn't mean they're right—including your accusations against me. In 1930s Germany, the political leadership believed Jews were responsible for all their problems and that things would improve once they were gone. That didn't make them right.

9. Oh, so now my style is criminal? I thought the issue was the content. I've explained the rest.

Nicholas King said:Otherwise, you can flip yourself upside down, but this will still look like an attack on someone because of what they say, rather than how they say it. Those who are silenced and offended (and incapable of actual debate) can just put him on ignore. Those who know how to debate can methodically deconstruct every sentence—isn't that the whole point of a forum? Therefore, this kind of bias and playing favorites is completely pointless.

I suppose I appreciate that, even as a user I don't particularly care for, you have enough objectivity to conclude I was removed just because I'm not liked by many. I think that's the whole point.

Nicholas King said:Whenever someone starts nitpicking whether a sentence is offensive or not, I always think back to that old Tyndall rule—the one where he basically said that even if you’re "again writing total nonsense"

Does anyone else feel like we've heard this one a thousand times already? Or is it just me? 🍿

hollowmason64 said:Exactly that—you follow your own script, and anyone pointing out flaws in your stats or logic gets labeled as ignorant or uneducated. Not to mention how you attacked every woman on that topic you just jumped onto, insulting them for not conforming to your idea of "normal" when it comes to childbirth 🙄

To put it simply, you've managed to annoy pretty much everyone who even breathed in your direction 🤣

Kissic, I can tell you that sometimes I actually dig your takes, or maybe it's just because you're stubborn—like, okay, fine, you've got guts.
I enjoy your comments, don't let it go to your head, but keep it up.
You've got my support!

mistymason1 received a partial ban on unknown? Why am I even asking? I simply cannot believe it.
I find myself standing with Nicholas King to support his appeal—demanding the reversal of this unjustly imposed partial ban. Having read his posts on numerous occasions, I have yet to witness a single blatant violation of this subforum's rules. What I see clearly, however, is yet another transparently organized clique of vulgarians—those incapable of engaging verbally—attempting through behind-the-scenes maneuvering to eliminate another high-quality forum member simply because he isn't to their liking. For what reason? Out of pure, unadulterated spite.

Respect basic democratic values; respect the fundamental human right to free speech and expression!
How long do you intend to purge all intelligent, literate individuals from this subforum, turning it into a cheap imitation while leaving only fools behind?

Let them speak! For heaven's sake!

hollowmason64 said:Exactly—you charge ahead with your own agenda, and anyone who points out the "holes" in your statistics or viewpoints gets labeled as moronic, illiterate, or whatever else you care to conjure... not to mention on this the topic, which you've now latched onto, you insulted every woman who doesn't consider it "normal" to give birth 🙄

To put it bluntly—you’ve managed to irritate just about everyone who wrote a single word there. 🤣

Regarding this trolling, a few select words should be said. First, how is that considered an insult?
This was the very first post following the introductory post on the topic—beautiful, thorough, polite, and highly constructive.
Of course, it wasn't sanctioned because it wasn't classified as an insult, but rather "as" some comedic moment within certain feminist circles, presumably.

red_one said:Screw that! What do you think about?
Surely not a pot of chili!
Idiot!

Insulting all women "there" who don't find giving birth "normal"? What kind of sacred, divine standard defines "normal" to you if that isn't it? Are women holy cows that one shouldn't touch the unnatural, twisted views of unknown and their cohorts? Goodness! Their "right" to give birth. But what if their right not to give birth directly encroaches upon the male right to reproduction?
Women whose views on giving birth "there" are deemed "not normal" actually insult the very essence of humanity within us; yet, we don't complain or report them, let alone demand they be banned or removed through any repressive means. Their views and their choices regarding birth are their own business.

Patrick Brown7 said:I concur 🙏

The moderators aren't particularly demanding—hardly a burden, really 😁

but consider the performance he put on in this thread 😲
A permanent ban—not a partial one ☕

unknown

My friend, a simple ban? How quaint. Should we instead settle things with a bit more flair—perhaps some kidney stone torture, much like the chaos in Libya?
Then justice might actually be served—and the sycophants and yes-men could live happily ever after... or so they think.
What irritates me most about this entire "situation" is the blatant promotion of groupthink—the calculated removal of anyone deemed "unsuitable"—which remains a profound insult to the human intellect.

Just send the man back to unknown and stop wasting your breath.

Will this country ever truly escape totalitarianism?

...

George Thomas6, I’d hire you as my spokesperson in a heartbeat!

William Reyes12 said:Kissinger, I’ve gotta tell you, sometimes I really dig your takes—or maybe they're just totally wild, in that sense of "you don't back down," okay, fine, you definitely have some backbone.
I love reading your comments, don't let it go to your head though, just keep doing what you're doing.
You've got my full support!

Honey, I think you've got me mixed up with someone else—that's just not how I talk. I left that kind of vocabulary way back in my teenage years.😁

Give me a kiss, baby, just live your life and do whatever you want.

If any group of Lowe's moderators had ever actually demonstrated a sense of tolerance or basic common sense, it would be this specific duo currently overseeing the PDF section.

Kura, I have been following your posts for quite some time now, and I was just one of many individuals you’ve attempted to ensnare in your signature verbal skirmishes—those convoluted webs of contradictions where you employ a biting, often insulting tone. You seem to aim for that precise, provocative sweet spot designed to drive your interlocutors to the brink of insanity, hovering right on the edge of outright harassment, all while cranking up the tension just to ensure a discussion devolves into pure chaos rather than actual dialogue.

You represent that particular breed of provocateur found in every online community, which isn't surprising, though I don't begrudge people for finally reaching their breaking point. To be perfectly honest, whenever I've spotted you in a thread lately, my instinct has been to simply steer clear; I find I no longer have the patience to sit through your attempts to belittle and insult others purely for your own amusement.

I wouldn't go so far as to call you unintelligent—quite the contrary, it is evident that you aren't a fool and that you possess the capacity for meaningful insight—but you certainly have mastered the art of manufacturing an uncomfortable atmosphere and delivering insults.

It would be highly beneficial if you could attempt to grasp what people are actually trying to communicate here. My fear is that you will inevitably find some new way to lecture everyone, insisting that they are universally mistaken while you alone hold the truth.

Regardless, I am not suggesting you vanish from the forum entirely; in fact, I disagree. Stay as you are, Kura. But please... for heaven's sake, try to loosen up once in a while, or at the very least—allow others to do so.