Trolling like Katie is my new personality

So, I was posting in the Women's Corner thread about gold diggers looking for rich husbands—and look, I stand by everything I said, especially since I backed it up with a real-life example of how this actually goes down. But apparently, because I voiced my opinion, Herb decided my take was just "trolling." She went ahead and slapped me with a 35-point infraction, which ended up triggering a three-day ban. Just typical.

So, here’s how they play it: they use that same old tactic used in those infamous hate speech cases. They just slap a "troll" label on anyone who disagrees with them, and then they use their moderator powers to basically bash them over the head for it.

What a disgrace. 🤮

Herb said:Hey Frank Moore4,

You just got hit with an infraction on Reddit.

The reason: Trolling.
-------

-------

Heads up—this infraction carries a 35-point penalty and could lead to your access being restricted until it runs out. Just a reminder that serious violations stay on your record permanently.

Original Post:
I honestly don't get why people make such a massive deal out of this stuff. It feels like everyone is just looking for a reason to be outraged lately. I was scrolling through some discussions on Reddit earlier, and the level of nitpicking is just exhausting. You see someone make a simple point, and within minutes, there’s a dozen people jumping down their throat over some tiny technicality that doesn't even matter in the grand scheme of things. Take what Frank Moore4 was saying the other day—he made a perfectly reasonable observation about how certain trends are shifting, and instead of actually engaging with his logic, people just started attacking him personally. It's the same pattern every single time. People would rather win a superficial argument than have a real conversation. And don't even get me started on the constant drama in the Women's Corner. It's become this weird echo chamber where if you don't use the exact right phrasing, you're basically treated like an outcast. It’s totally unnecessary. We should be able to discuss ideas without feeling like we're walking through a minefield. At the end of the day, most of this online friction is just noise. If you want to have a productive discussion, you have to be willing to listen and move past the petty grievances. Otherwise, we're all just shouting into a void and getting nothing out of it. It's pretty straightforward if you stop taking everything so seriously.

Quote: Xena2000 said:😕 🙄 😁

You’re out here spinning fairy tales, but I’m just telling it like it is—this is how things actually play out in the end.🤷

Why are you even acting surprised? Everything I just said is the absolute truth. I actually know someone who’s planning to get married, but she’s dead set against having kids because the whole idea of motherhood sends her into a total psychotic break. 🤣☕

Look, choosing not to have kids goes against both nature and God's laws. It just doesn't sit right. On the flip side, you've got people who desperately want to be parents but can't conceive naturally—those are the ones who step up and adopt.

Take care,
Reddit

What exactly are you whining about? You got your warning fair and square.

mellowraven22 said:What exactly are you complaining about? You got your warning fair and square.

It’s just not true that I got it "fair and square." My issue is that a perfectly legitimate opinion is being labeled as trolling.

Look, since it’s apparently "so hard to understand," here it is:

Why are you surprised? Everything I said is the absolute truth. I know someone who would get married, but she wouldn't want kids because children trigger psychotic episodes for her.

Yeah, I actually do know someone who would marry but refuse to have kids because they represent something she's terrified of. I was just using that as an example in this debate to show that there are definitely people out there who choose marriage without wanting offspring.

Because choosing not to have descendants goes against both nature and God's laws. On the other hand, some people can't have biological children, but they still want them and opt for adoption.

And that is my personal stance, which I believe in deeply.

So, there’s no trolling going on here—just moderator overreach. ☕ Just to be clear, I'm not looking to get Herb or any other mod in trouble. I just want these unjustified infractions, handed out simply because a moderator doesn't like another user's perspective, to be kept to an absolute minimum. I've picked up warnings plenty of times before, but this is the first time I've actually spoken up about it. It genuinely rubbed me the wrong way, and honestly, that should probably say something.

Isolated anecdotes and your own little religious beliefs are, honestly, total bullshit arguments in any actual, sane discussion. That’s exactly why you got flagged. And if getting that warning sent you running straight into a ban, well, that’s hardly the moderator's fault.

mellowraven22 said:Isolated incidents and someone's personal religious beliefs are, frankly, total bullshit arguments in any decent discussion.

Excuse me?! 🙄

Look, even if they don't count as "arguments," they are still "stances." And what was just said definitely wasn't trolling (and I know trolls well, since we've dealt with that kind of trash plenty of times over at the SF Center).

I don't mean to overstep, but I truly believe this person is being unfairly penalized. They were simply sharing their own perspective, which is a fundamental democratic right held by every single individual in America.

And what exactly is your definition of democracy, son? Just mindless babbling and insults thrown around without any rules or consequences whenever someone feels like it?

Claiming that "refusing to have children goes against divine law and isn't normal" isn't an opinion—it's textbook trolling. It’s nothing more than throwing fuel on a fire to provoke arguments that are completely off-topic and likely to spiral into personal attacks. Honestly, that is the most classic definition of trolling you'll ever find.

Chloe Green61 said:Saying that not wanting kids goes against God's laws isn't an opinion, it's just straight-up trolling.

So how is someone supposed to argue that such a view isn't natural? It makes it seem like you aren't allowed to have an opinion about what counts as natural. I guess the issue is that someone linked being "natural" directly to God.

Still, that's not really the point here. Even if there were no God, you could argue that nature itself is god(basically the physical, biological, and chemical laws governing us). Nature dictates our instincts, so if someone's instincts don't align with the majority, then they aren't "natural." That’s the logic behind why they got flagged. Or, if you want to use that aggressive liberal terminology, it's just a variation from the norm—a deviation from what's considered natural or divine. That's their stance.

If they had just said it's a variation from the norm that they personally disagree with, would that have been an acceptable way to express disagreement when a wife refuses to have children with her husband?

hollowtrucker77 said:so does that mean we don't need moderators??

We need them to moderate the discussion, but not personal opinions.

olivere, do those two sentences strike you differently, or am I just overthinking things?

hollowtrucker77 said:Timothy Robinson2, do those two sentences actually mean different things to you?

In this case, yeah. His right to share an personal opinion is being weighed against the need for moderation. I guess the logic they use is if everyone has a right to their own view, then there's no need to moderate, but that isn't really true. Moderators should manage the flow of the conversation, not the actual viewpoints. For example:

Person A: I think certain groups are just uneducated.
Person B: You're an idiot, how can you even say that, you moron.

Person Person A shouldn't be punished because that's just their take, but Person B definitely should, because they aren't debating the point—they're just attacking Person A. Even if Person A is talking nonsense, it's still just their opinion, I guess.

I’m speaking up because this happens to me all the time. My views often differ from the norm on this forum, and then some moderator decides I'm a troll and hands out bans.

Like, if I say a stay-at-home mom's job isn't as hard as working at a place like ExxonMobil, I get banned. Or if I argue that spanking isn't abuse in one specific instance, I get banned. I appeal it, and of course, the appeal gets denied just to make things worse than the original topic I was even discussing—which, by the way, you were defending just like me. So, clearly, in my case, they weren't moderating the topic, they were moderating my opinion instead of the moderator's own bias.

It's happening to the thread starter now, too. He used a word naturally and, somehow, God help him, he got banned. Both Africa and Tyndall agreed about it later.

hollowtrucker77 said:you can count on me being right too, just like those cards of yours

Unfortunately, I know that—did the math pretty quick 👍 but there's that old saying, better to accept an injury than to commit one.

accept what you can't change
🙂

is there anyone out there who actually says "listen to what people are telling you"

hollowtrucker77 said:Anyone ever say stuff like, "just listen to what people are telling you"?

Yeah, I guess. Some people phrase it like this: we're all about democracy, but not if everyone gets to say whatever they want. 🙂

Just because some people think democracy means "yay, I can do whatever the hell I want"
if you're looking for a reality check, let me give you a quick example: go ahead and enlist in the US Marines, go through boot camp, and try not to lose your mind when they're screaming in your face and pushing you to your absolute limit
it’s only a measly three months of training (and don't forget, those drill sergeants have strict rules and they're watching your every move)
once you've survived that, then you can come back and try telling me that being pushed hard isn't a form of violence

hollowtrucker77 said:just because some people think democracy means "woohoo, I can do whatever I want"
if you want, maybe I could give a little example: go join the US Marines, finish training, and try not to crack when they're screaming in your face and pushing you to the limit
that's only about three miserable months (and yeah, the NCOs have rules and they're always watching)
once that's done, come back and tell me that discipline isn't violence

Since Marines come out of that training in a "Semper Fi" mindset where they'd die for their country or their buddies, I guess you could say that discipline turns boys into men. It’s kind of like marriage, actually.

If we look at marriage that way, a spouse who can handle a bit of rough handling is basically learning how to actually live in a marriage (since there isn't much else left to consume in a marriage anyway), or rather, they accept that things won't always go their way because the relationship matters more than one bad moment. Everything I defended was just that.

Your example, if I can even call it that, is when you were defending a husband who hit his wife while drunk after she nagged him. That act is violence, no matter how you spin it.

To wrap this up—an officer being tough on someone is about building relationships based on reality, not fairy tales. So, you were defending chaos, while I'm talking about building something real.

And to end it—honestly, I think Carthage deserves to be destroyed. 😁

P.S. - the whole point of this complaint is to explain why you shouldn't use "nature" and God in the same sentence when expressing an opinion. I guess nobody has explained that to you yet.

Look, Oliver, this isn't about nature or God. The issue is women hunting for wealthy husbands. Frank Moore4 started rambling about women who don't want kids—that isn't just off-topic, it's blatant trolling designed to derail the conversation. And the way he phrased it was unnecessarily inflammatory.

Timothy Robinson2 said:P.S. - the crux of this grievance is simply to explain to the author why one shouldn't pair "nature" and "God" within the same sentence when merely expressing a personal opinion. It seems that point hasn't quite sunk in yet.

In truth, you have unilaterally decided—and honestly, I am at a loss as to why—that this specific instance hinges on that exact issue, which it absolutely does not.

Since people are perpetually complaining about being trolled and constantly begging for a definition, allow me to offer a rather splendid little litmus test:

Let us assume the topic concerns Christians and their relationship with God, featuring the following debaters:

A: God gives me strength.
B: I agree; prayer fortifies me for my daily life.
C: I feel God's hand guiding me through life, even without prayer.
B: Fair enough, though personally, I find prayer easier because... [various reasons]...
C: Understood, but I suspect prayer might lose its potency if it becomes too repetitive and constant.
D: How can anyone actually believe in God when there is absolutely zero evidence for His existence? 🙄

How would you characterize the input from Person D?

Chloe Green61 said:Actually, you just arbitrarily decided—honestly, I have no idea why—that this specific case is the problem, when it really isn't.

Since people are always whining about being trolled and asking for a definition, here’s a little litmus test for you:

Let's say the topic is Christians and what God means to them. Here’s the conversation:

A: God gives me strength.
B: I agree, prayer helps me get through my daily life.
C: I feel God's hand guiding me through life even without prayer.
B: Fair enough, but personally, I find it easier to pray because... reasons...
C: True, though I think prayer might lose its value if we do it constantly and repetitively.
D: How can anyone actually believe in God when there's zero proof He exists? 🙄

How would you characterize Person D's comment?

Person D is being provocative, but since they aren't throwing out any personal insults, they shouldn't be sanctioned.
The issue is that people use "trolling" as an excuse to shut down the other side of the argument. Because once someone starts "stirring the pot" in a debate, people just jump in with a red card and a lecture: "That's trolling!" and all that nonsense.😉