Discussion policy - criteria

Beyond various other criteria—and I really don't want to get bogged down in the prerequisites here🤣—I find myself wondering if the designated moderators on Reddit, for instance, are actually familiar with the US Constitution? Do they possess even a surface-level understanding of concepts like democracy, political democracy, or the plurality of opinion?

It seems to me that the only concept truly understood around here is CENSORSHIP.

Mod driftingdriver has decided to shut down this thread, which was essentially just an extension of those endless debates regarding various symbols and ideologies. In this case, the conversation was dominated by—often in an ignorant and hostile manner toward opposing views—attacks on the star symbol, where people were essentially clashing over deeply divided sides.

The specific topic he closed dealt with the symbolism of the cross, touching upon the controversial idea that brutal bloodshed has been committed UNDER THAT SYMBOL as well.

Mod driftingdriver is shutting down the discussion and forbidding further debate by claiming that since 90% of the population in this country are believers, any topic concerning the symbolism of the cross—specifically its negative historical context—is prohibited.

So, this serves as the opening post for this controversial, closed, and forbidden topic (we all know how many of these exist on Politics; this one is practically child's play):

the cross...
Since I’ve been handed a warning from our dear moderator for "trolling" (even though my comments were directly relevant to the subject), I’m going to start a new thread.

I propose that the cross, much like the red star or the swastika, should be banned as a symbol under which heinous crimes have been committed.
Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people have died or been murdered (whether directly or indirectly) at the hands of those who wore the cross, doing so in the name of "God."
Unlike the swastika or the red star, the cross remains highly relevant today, and evil continues to be perpetrated under its sign.

1. This thread wasn't closed because it was a potential breeding ground for bickering and insults, driven by our mods' terrifying fear that users might virtually murder one another.
2) It wasn't moved to the Lounge, which is what they generously do for so many others.
3) It wasn't closed under any other pretext, but rather because

driftingdriver said:In the US, the vast majority are Christians. This topic is absurd. If anyone wants to discuss banning the cross, they should go to the forums of extremist nations and lament about it there as much as they like. They won't do it here.

driftingdriver said:I could write a thick book explaining why this was closed and why you received a warning. With that topic, you horribly insulted 90% of the people in the US and, by extension, 90% of our users. The penalty could have been even harsher, but I hope you will correct your views.

and the little extra touch:

Reddit forum rules

Pay close attention to:

insulting other users, intentionally provoking personal arguments, or engaging in non-constructive national, religious and similar conflicts (trolling)

The sheer arrogance here is what worries me—this tendency to impose certain views and enforce censorship without offering any thoughtful explanation.

At this rate, I expect we’ll soon be required to list our religious affiliations during registration, which is something we at least owe to the 90% of Americans who identify as believers.

For those who aren't aware, things are moving in that direction quite smoothly. 👍

edit:

😁 Make sure you don't miss out on this brilliant display of intellectual concern:

driftingdriver said:I could easily write a thick book explaining why this was shut down and why you received a warning. By choosing that topic, you’ve deeply offended 90% of the people in the US and, by extension, 90% of the users here. The penalty could have been even harsher, but I sincerely hope you will reconsider your positions..

Sarah Wilson95, you’ve basically laid out every single reason why this thread needs to be shut down, so I don't really have anything left to add. It’s up to the admins now.

By the way, your thread title isn't just an insult to me—and look, I’m just a simple servant of God—but you’re actually disrespecting God by trying to canonize me with that "Gospel of albatros" nonsense.

- Don't take the Lord your God's name in vain.

So, whether you realize it or not, you're effectively insulting 90% of the population here in the States.

driftingdriver said:Sarah Wilson95, you’ve basically laid out every single reason why this thread needs to be shut down, so I don't really have anything left to add. It’s up to the admins now.

By the way, your thread title isn't just an insult to me—and look, I’m just a simple servant of God—but you’re actually disrespecting God by trying to canonize me with that "Gospel of albatros" nonsense.

- Don't take the Lord your God's name in vain.

So, whether you realize it or not, you're effectively insulting 90% of the population here in the States.

🙄 driftingdriver, aren't you overreacting just a little bit with all of this?

First off, you're well aware that for days now, people in the Politics section have been debating the banning of symbols, arguing that people were killed under the guise of all those different emblems. This often leads to a pathological kind of relativism or attempts at relativizing history—which is a recurring issue in our political discussions—specifically regarding how certain symbols were used during violent eras. In that context, someone started this thread which could essentially be summarized as, "Sure, but they killed people in the name of the cross, too."

So, how did you react?
What was your move?
Why are you forcing your viewpoint on everyone?
Why are you practicing censorship?
Is this platform meant to be a gathering for Christian fundamentalists?
Are you truly certain you understood the core of the topic, or perhaps you could have simply closed the thread or moved it to the Lounge without all this drama and sentimental language about your own empathy for that famous 90%?

I’m not out here practicing any kind of censorship. My approach is pretty straightforward: I prioritize respecting the US Constitution and our national laws, and then I follow the Reddit rules. That’s really all there is to it. If I’ve somehow misinterpreted the forum rules, then the admins have every opportunity to overturn my decisions. It couldn't be made any simpler than that.

You have carried out censorship, regardless of what the folks running this Reddit might say when everything settles down.

You FORBADE the discussion, which had started somewhat more or less normally, without any major deviation from the usual topics, nothing more radical than the rest, nothing more serious than the rest, and nothing different from the thread it was actually building upon.

UNDERSTAND THIS
people have been debating for days about the various symbols used during killings, and when someone points out, "okay, people were killed under the cross too"—amidst all that chaos in the Politics subforum—your action is pure censorship, because you provided an "explanation" that amounts to imposing a specific viewpoint and disrespecting the secular nature of the United States.

- Closing down troll threads or discussions that lack any real substance isn't censorship.
- As the moderator for the politics section, I have the authority to decide which topics are just trolling or entirely pointless, and subsequently delete or lock them. If anyone feels this is unfair, feel free to go read the Reddit rules.

driftingdriver said:- Closing down troll threads or discussions that lack any real substance isn't censorship.
- As the moderator for the politics section, I have the authority to decide which topics are just trolling or entirely pointless, and subsequently delete or lock them. If anyone feels this is unfair, feel free to go read the Reddit rules.

You shut it down under the pretext that it offends 90% of Americans

because the thread mentioned how people have been killed "in the name of the cross" throughout history.

Does that really offend 90% of Americans? 😕

You also cited the Forum Rules regarding religious intolerance, specifically pointing to those sections highlighted in purple.

If you hadn't been acting like such a troll from the very beginning...😉 maybe you would have realized sooner that the "call" to let's ban the cross was actually just pointing out how nonsensical many of the arguments in the previous thread had become.

because, you know, people really have been killed under the cross throughout history...

I’ve been scrolling through this PDF, and it’s clear the moderators are showing some serious bias in their decisions:

Observer—on the front lines of Canadian-Muslim chauvinism.

driftingdriver—purely pedantic behavior. He acts like a sheep, sanctioning any response that doesn't kiss the establishment's ass. He completely misses the provocations from various trolls and bottom-feeders, yet hands out bans left and right for what are essentially harmless remarks.

The others (Simba, edge, Blaise, rezonator) aren't bad people. Whether they agreed with something or not, I don't think they have any actual malice.

However, I find the malicious removal of Joe torture absolutely disgusting. Whoever orchestrated that while hiding behind technicalities is clearly at fault.
Generally speaking, this PDF protects various former America trash and Muslim fanatics, while targeting Mexicans here and there—sometimes looking the other way, sometimes jumping on them unnecessarily.
By any rational standard, certain former America trolls enjoy privileged status. Looking at the logs, it's obvious they aren't even indoctrinated; they are just moral pus in human form.

Bottom line: these two highlighted mods are failing at their jobs. What do you all think?

All those heroes just faded away in silence, staring down into the dark abyss of the earth...

People have been talking about this for ages, yet somehow, nothing ever changes.
I just don't know how many times we should bother raising this issue. Today—even though it's Sunday—is the first day for the new moderator, and we all know how things go when someone is handed a PDF and told they're in charge.
We could always just stay quiet and act like we aren't free to walk away from this place whenever we want.🙏

Take a look at your profile; there are twelve pages of warnings there. You’ve been collecting them from just about every moderator on the site. Isn't that just proof that the problem isn't with the moderators, but with you? You wage this personal crusade under the guise of "enlightenment" and trying to influence the masses, and you don't care how blunt you are—telling it like it is regardless of who gets hurt. It’s pure Machiavellianism, really. It seems no moderator is ever good enough for you unless they happen to be standing on the exact same side as you.

Lately, you’ve been getting those warnings from me and the observers, mostly because we are essentially the only ones systematically moderating the politics section. That’s why we’re constantly being hauled before the Attorney General; it's simply evidence that we’re doing the dirty work.

The rest of the mods are basically inactive. Some have checked out completely, while others might eventually drift back. As it stands, the politics section only has two mods who are actually active on a systematic level.

If you attack us active mods from every possible angle and orientation, doesn't that just prove we aren't biased?

Personally, I’ve been labeled as everything from an American sympathizer and a communist to a fascist or a religious zealot... you name it. All of it packed into one person. But honestly, those labels say much more about the people throwing them than they do about me. Of course, we also have to account for the silent majority, those people who are slowly returning to the politics section after it was hijacked by extremists—just a tiny handful of people representing every possible color, fighting their holy wars and peddling their indoctrination. That’s why most people stay away. My mission is to bring that silent majority back to the political discussion. So far, I think I'm succeeding; more and more of that quiet crowd is showing up.

Gregory Howard said:I’ve been scrolling through this PDF, and it’s clear the moderators are showing some serious bias in their decisions:

Observer—on the front lines of Canadian-Muslim chauvinism.

driftingdriver—purely pedantic behavior. He acts like a sheep, sanctioning any response that doesn't kiss the establishment's ass. He completely misses the provocations from various trolls and bottom-feeders, yet hands out bans left and right for what are essentially harmless remarks.

The others (Simba, edge, Blaise, rezonator) aren't bad people. Whether they agreed with something or not, I don't think they have any actual malice.

However, I find the malicious removal of Joe torture absolutely disgusting. Whoever orchestrated that while hiding behind technicalities is clearly at fault.
Generally speaking, this PDF protects various former America trash and Muslim fanatics, while targeting Mexicans here and there—sometimes looking the other way, sometimes jumping on them unnecessarily.
By any rational standard, certain former America trolls enjoy privileged status. Looking at the logs, it's obvious they aren't even indoctrinated; they are just moral pus in human form.

Bottom line: these two highlighted mods are failing at their jobs. What do you all think?

I’m not going to comment on how the moderator handles things, mostly because I’m not exactly a regular over on the former America subreddits. Though, if you ask me—and that’s just my outsider opinion—it feels like those old territories would basically just be one giant Mexico if it wasn't for his moderation. But hey, that's just what I think.🤷

As for driftingdriver, if he actually starts handing out bans to those "American communist trolls," then some "higher power"—the admins and sub-mods—is going to have to step in.

Here’s an example of how I got hit with an "instant ban" explanation from that troll, the-edge, over a single post—which eventually turned into a permanent ban with the excuse of having an offensive username, all after being on the site for a year.🙄

Here’s an example of how you handle a "American sympathizer" who starts an offensive thread.

It’s pretty obvious that the mods only get called out when they accidentally step on the toes of their favorite "American sympathizers." You can see it right here in these two examples. In both cases, we're looking at a troll getting slapped with a 200-point penalty—which should be an instant ban—but the results are totally inconsistent. One gets pardoned while the other gets punished by having their account stripped. I guess you could say justice was served, just in two completely different ways.😉

You really have to look at the turnaround time between when something is flagged and when it actually gets handled. When it comes to those old-school American sympathizers, they get a response in under four hours. In my case, it takes them four times longer than that.😁 I assume it took them a while to figure out some way to punish me, if only by stripping my username. It’s not like I insulted anyone or broke any other Reddit rules.🤷🤣

Look, it makes sense to assume there are some people from the former America among the mods or admins. I mean, give me one logical reason why we’d even keep an "ex-America" subforum alive. The Mexicans have turned it into their own personal playground, and the Canadians aren't exactly lagging far behind them...

I honestly think those mods you’re aiming at might be overstepping their bounds sometimes, BUT given how many absolute idiots populate the Politics section, I can actually see why they do what they do.

That said, I can't get behind that last ban handed out to Kevin Mitchell. Look, as much as some people find banning the cross offensive, you could argue it's just as insulting to forbid someone from displaying a pentagram... basically, we could all stand to work on our understanding of democracy, which is something everyone seems so eager to run toward without actually knowing where it leads.

Douglas Booth40 said:Look, it makes sense to assume there are some people from the former America among the mods or admins. I mean, give me one logical reason why we’d even keep an "ex-America" subforum alive. The Mexicans have turned it into their own personal playground, and the Canadians aren't exactly lagging far behind them...

You really are just so... I won't even go there.😁

They thrive on engagement—they need more posts, more clicks, more endless bickering... frankly, I think the former America subforum serves a purpose, but only if the American side actually stepped up and got more active.😉

mistycyclist5 said:You really are just so... I won't even go there.😁

They thrive on engagement—they need more posts, more clicks, more endless bickering... frankly, I think the former America subforum serves a purpose, but only if the American side actually stepped up and got more active.😉

How does one maintain an American identity when surrounded by those who look at you differently?🤷

Justice has finally prevailed...🙏

driftingdriver said:Sarah Wilson95, you’ve basically laid out every single reason why this thread needs to be shut down, so I don't really have anything left to add. It’s up to the admins now.

By the way, your thread title isn't just an insult to me—and look, I’m just a simple servant of God—but you’re actually disrespecting God by trying to canonize me with that "Gospel of albatros" nonsense.

- Don't take the Lord your God's name in vain.

So, whether you realize it or not, you're effectively insulting 90% of the population here in the States.

This is the exact same logic used by Muslim communities when they protest against things like the Muhammad caricatures. We all know that line of reasoning is flawed because free speech fundamentally includes the right to say things that are offensive or unsettling.

It’s honestly absurd when a moderator doesn't even grasp the definition of free speech as established by the European Court of Human Rights, an institution relevant to any US-aligned democratic framework.

Pathetic.

It feels somewhat absurd to start a discussion about banning the cross. Honestly, the only plausible reason for bringing this up is simple trolling. It doesn't really have anything to do with freedom of speech, does it?

Where on earth did you read that I’m a Christian—a Catholic?