Corona

Karen Doyle72 said:Look, this thread was never even meant to be about politics.
Sure, if you want to stretch it, there’s a connection there—but honestly? It’s the absolute last thing people are actually debating here.

Oh, please. Just listen to what Trump has to say regarding the virus and then compare. 😁 https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1...104015873?s=19

That's exactly where the political debate should have gone—but it got shut down. Now it just looks like a health discussion.

Lawrence Booth2 said:Look, I get what's going on here
I’m not paying for the servers, nor am I running this outfit
Man, expecting an academic seminar on a forum we’re all using for free... hahahah
Besides, you pass college just by giving the professor exactly what they want to hear—even if it’s totally wrong😁

It’s not like we need total anarchy either

But if someone tries to ban me just because I read something online or in a book... and then shared it, posted a diagram, or a map that wasn't even high-res
Well, thanks for nothing
Count me out

That specific moderator is busy cleaning up posts that might even be questionable or untrue (well, when you can't prove otherwise anyway), but they'll happily push their own views—which, let's be real, are pretty socially dangerous since they go against the WHO, the CDC, and whatever the Secretary of Health is saying. They just keep repeating those official lines over and over.

Thanks to everyone for the feedback aimed at making this two-way communication "highway"—with all its intersections and bridges—a little smoother for everyone traveling in any direction.

Just like you’ve got road signs out there regulating traffic (speed limits, one-way streets, no entry, etc.), we have certain rules here on the forum set and maintained by the moderators.
Please stick to the moderator guidelines, the forum rules, and the moderator pdf politics.

Looking at everything written in this thread, the moderation team is trying to steer things toward cooling down the passions and keeping panic at bay, though they're still being pretty liberal and relaxed with how they handle things.

There’s another major point to address here.

In this open discussion, not a single person has actually commented on a single sentence I made in my previous appeal regarding the moderation of the Corona saga.
Instead, you've all just focused on commenting on the moderators as a function.
Nobody has shown even the slightest desire to touch upon the following facts I laid out (and am repeating here):
- We need to show respect and consideration toward every (especially relatively new) virus.
- It's been proven that the Corona virus can lead to fatal outcomes, primarily among the elderly, those with chronic illnesses, the malnourished, or the exhausted (for instance, medical staff in a certain Chinese province were subjected to days of grueling labor—they weren't exactly eating and drinking well, and sleep was basically non-existent).
- It has an extremely high potential for spreading.
- For a very illustrative and educational look at the actual reality of the Corona virus, check out the deep dives online—specifically the Nu2 segment with Aleksandar Stanković on March 1st, 2020, featuring guest Professor Dr. sc. Igor Rudan.
It calls for caution, but without the panic or the hysteria.
It dismantles and demystifies myths and fears.
It’s presented in a way that’s incredibly easy to understand, even for laypeople (honestly, an impressive presentation, much like a packed Dodger Stadium).

The only thing you guys did was repeatedly and biasedly twist my points.

In fact, you even had plenty of room to lament, comment, or correct things over on the PŽK.

You probably didn't even listen to—let alone comment on—one of the greatest (true) authorities on epidemiology from this part of the world; which is exactly why I recommended listening to the views of the esteemed Professor Dr. sc. Igor Rudan right here.

You’re free to read the NYT from February 28th of this year; it has a solid editorial, and you can comment on that too (though, after all this, please don't accidentally wander back onto the PŽK).

You had the chance to develop this discussion in a correct and constructive way.

But instead, many of you went (and kept going) straight for the ad hominem attacks.

The fact that you haven't received your well-deserved "red cards" yet just means that from now on, even the smallest infraction (trolling, insults, acting stupid, ad hominem attacks, playing lawyer, or critiquing the moderation) will be more seriously "rewarded."
Issuing warnings can also be retroactive.

Let's move on in a more casual tone. ☕

1) The moderators are basically telling us to go watch Igor Rudan's interview on "Sunday at 2."
2) Igor Rudan is actually an official for one of the WHO centers.
3) The WHO just put out a statement regarding the Corona epidemic.
4) Some users here just shared that WHO statement—and in return, their posts were deleted, and they got warned or banned.
5) Then you have moderator velvetmoose9 writing about how the WHO might be compromised, saying they don't fully trust them...

Based on those facts, it looks like we aren't allowed to share what the WHO says—but if that's the case, we shouldn't even listen to Igor Rudan either because:
1) Igor Rudan is part of the WHO organization.
2) The WHO might be bribed (according to one of the moderators), which implies Rudan could be bribed too—since the WHO is just a group of individuals, and Rudan is one of them...

Just basic logic, really.

So far, Rudan hasn't distanced himself from the WHO statements...

Given everything that’s been laid out in this thread, it seems the moderator pdf politics follows a specific trajectory—aiming to dampen the fervor and suppress any budding panic. That said, the oversight remains relatively liberal and somewhat loosely managed.

Good grief. 😁

"If you sing, you squeeze out crap!" 😁 😁 😁

Under Article 38 of the Constitution of the United States, freedom of thought, expression, and speech is supposedly guaranteed—though, judging by the atmosphere in places like Springfield and even within this very forum, it seems those concepts are entirely foreign to them. 😁

It’s obvious the forum owner was ordered not to spread panic—hence this kind of moderation.

velvetmoose9 said:Thanks to everyone for the feedback aimed at making this two-way communication "highway"—with all its intersections and bridges—a little smoother for everyone traveling in any direction.

Just like you’ve got road signs out there regulating traffic (speed limits, one-way streets, no entry, etc.), we have certain rules here on the forum set and maintained by the moderators.
Please stick to the moderator guidelines, the forum rules, and the moderator pdf politics.

Looking at everything written in this thread, the moderation team is trying to steer things toward cooling down the passions and keeping panic at bay, though they're still being pretty liberal and relaxed with how they handle things.

There’s another major point to address here.

In this open discussion, not a single person has actually commented on a single sentence I made in my previous appeal regarding the moderation of the Corona saga.
Instead, you've all just focused on commenting on the moderators as a function.
Nobody has shown even the slightest desire to touch upon the following facts I laid out (and am repeating here):
- We need to show respect and consideration toward every (especially relatively new) virus.
- It's been proven that the Corona virus can lead to fatal outcomes, primarily among the elderly, those with chronic illnesses, the malnourished, or the exhausted (for instance, medical staff in a certain Chinese province were subjected to days of grueling labor—they weren't exactly eating and drinking well, and sleep was basically non-existent).
- It has an extremely high potential for spreading.
- For a very illustrative and educational look at the actual reality of the Corona virus, check out the deep dives online—specifically the Nu2 segment with Aleksandar Stanković on March 1st, 2020, featuring guest Professor Dr. sc. Igor Rudan.
It calls for caution, but without the panic or the hysteria.
It dismantles and demystifies myths and fears.
It’s presented in a way that’s incredibly easy to understand, even for laypeople (honestly, an impressive presentation, much like a packed Dodger Stadium).

The only thing you guys did was repeatedly and biasedly twist my points.

In fact, you even had plenty of room to lament, comment, or correct things over on the PŽK.

You probably didn't even listen to—let alone comment on—one of the greatest (true) authorities on epidemiology from this part of the world; which is exactly why I recommended listening to the views of the esteemed Professor Dr. sc. Igor Rudan right here.

You’re free to read the NYT from February 28th of this year; it has a solid editorial, and you can comment on that too (though, after all this, please don't accidentally wander back onto the PŽK).

You had the chance to develop this discussion in a correct and constructive way.

But instead, many of you went (and kept going) straight for the ad hominem attacks.

The fact that you haven't received your well-deserved "red cards" yet just means that from now on, even the smallest infraction (trolling, insults, acting stupid, ad hominem attacks, playing lawyer, or critiquing the moderation) will be more seriously "rewarded."
Issuing warnings can also be retroactive.

Let's move on in a more casual tone. ☕

Can I actually answer you here, or will I get banned if I do? I don't understand anything anymore, but it doesn't matter.

Here is today's interview with Rudan on Index.

"Basically, it’s been CONFIRMED that the only people being counted as infected are those who actually ended up needing hospital care and were tested there. These numbers aren't representative of anything; you can't just take their mortality rates and apply them to the total number of people infected in Wuhan, let alone the entire population of Wuhan—meaning both the sick and the healthy. Because of that, looking at confirmed cases versus deaths online and trying to draw conclusions by simply dividing one by the other is totally misguided," writes Rudan. "In fact, both the numerator and the denominator are completely off. Even the death counts in the numerator are misleading because if you're tracking confirmed infections and deaths in 'real-time' day by day, obviously a huge chunk of those newly infected haven't even had a chance to recover or pass away yet. People in intensive care will be passing away over the coming days, weeks, maybe even months, so your death count will continue to climb against the pool of infected people you already have on record. This means your fatality rate—calculated as 'deaths among confirmed cases'—won't stay stuck at 2% or 3%; it could actually climb to 7% over time. So, while saying '3% or 4% of confirmed cases have died so far' isn't technically a lie, that's exactly what the WHO did," Rudan explains. "But what they failed to mention is that this fatality rate among the CONFIRMED cases is completely unrepresentative of the fatality rate among ALL infected individuals, which is significantly, significantly lower. As an epidemiologist, it wouldn't surprise me if it were ten times lower. Actually, I wouldn't even be surprised if it were 50 times lower. And that would make it less deadly and dangerous than a common flu. However, since the virus is new and unknown, I have to allow for the possibility that it might be slightly more dangerous, and perhaps the death rate among confirmed cases is only 3 to 5 times lower than the rate among the total infected. The only thing I am absolutely certain about is that the number of CONFIRMED cases is definitely not equal to the TOTAL number of infections in Wuhan. And current global figures for COVID-19 are still largely determined by what happened in Wuhan at the start of the epidemic, since more than two-thirds of cases worldwide still trace back to Wuhan," says our Scientist.

So, the guy is essentially saying that both the numerator and the denominator are flawed and that we can't draw any real conclusions based on these current numbers. He believes that, from a professional standpoint, the actual numbers are much better, which is a legitimate take, though he leaves the door open to the idea that things could be worse since the virus is still a mystery to us.

I'll put it this way myself:

Let's try this—even though I don't know why I'm even bothering with this nonsense since I'll probably just get banned for "trolling."

You simply cannot perform an analysis using incomplete, inaccurate, and most importantly, highly dynamic data through static mathematical methods. It's all wrong.
What that biologist from Toronto wrote is absolute mathematical nonsense, and it's honestly laughable that a Scientist would go public with such foolishness.

What's the deal here?

The infection data is inaccurate. It's obvious to everyone that nobody knows the true number of infected people in any country in the world. Therefore, the number of infected is not a relevant metric at all.
What data is actually exact? The number of deaths and the number of recoveries. Those are the only two numbers we truly know. These are the so-called "closed cases" (though, okay, it complicates the math because recovered people can get reinfected, but let's ignore that for now). Out of all the closed cases, 8% have died. Of course, again, this is a snapshot in time and might not mean much because the window is so short. But, you can certainly draw *something* from it.

Another interesting fact is that out of those currently infected (again, that’s a totally flawed metric since we don't actually know the total number of infections, just the number of people who tested positive), 18% are in critical or serious condition.

It is still incredibly difficult to draw any real conclusions here. From a statistical standpoint, the situation on the Diamond Princess provides some fascinating data because we have controlled conditions there, much like what we see in countries that are running massive testing operations, such as Italy.
China, for instance, is an extreme outlier.

So, what I'm trying to get at is that you can't predict anything or explain anything using simple math right now. The data is misleading, messy, and inaccurate, so we really need to stop with these silly little calculations.
Of course, we need to calm the panic, but we also need to stay cautious, because as I said, we don't even fully grasp what we're dealing with yet.

And then I get banned for trolling and spreading panic.

That is exactly the kind of moderation inconsistency I am always talking about! Why do I get banned for saying the exact same thing as Professor Igor Rudan, especially if you agree with him? From what I can see, myself and several other forum members are simply warning against jumping to conclusions based on faulty data. Our goal isn't to cause panic—it's actually the opposite! Let's be rational, look strictly at the facts, and evaluate potential risks so we can protect ourselves in time. That’s it. That is just rational thinking. It's called risk management.

It’s like if I went to get comprehensive auto insurance and posted in a thread that I was doing it because there might be a big storm this summer that could wreck my car, just to cover my bases... and then you ban me for "spreading panic" about a storm.
I'm not spreading fear. And I don't want there to be a storm. I just want to be protected from the risk factor.

Besides, that is precisely why hospitals here have set aside spaces for quarantine. They probably won't need them—it would be wonderful if they didn't, nobody wants that—but... if it becomes necessary, they are ready. Hospitals aren't spreading panic by being prepared. Or do you disagree, and now I'm going to lose 300 points for that?

I've been lurking on this forum for a very long time, and while I write less frequently, I have to say that I have never witnessed such a style of moderation 🤦

If this is happening because the owners of this site ordered it, then it’s a massive disgrace to an otherwise reputable platform, and it might even carry legal implications. However, if a moderator is just unilaterally hijacking the thread like this, then it’s high time the owner stepped in and dealt with them.

The issue here is that the moderator is clearly a complete amateur when it comes to medicine, going so far as to call the warnings from the World Health Organization "horribly stupid." He's being enabled by some doctor on this forum who condescendingly tosses out "absolute truths" and advice without any actual scientific basis—advice that could easily backfire on people later on.

It’s interesting how reality and the way things are actually unfolding continue to debunk both the moderator and this doctor-forum-user, day after day.
Over the next few weeks, this is going to be the hottest topic across all the major news outlets and message boards. I highly doubt it serves the interests of the site owner to have a moderator calling the highest health authorities "stupid" while simultaneously banning and deleting posts from people who are simply following the WHO's guidelines. It's deeply concerning...

I'm with you on this.
It’s honestly terrifying how everyone underestimates the situation and peddles this fake sense of security, while others just spread panic and troll for the hell of it.
I really wonder where people get the audacity to push such nonsense when we're talking about something this serious.
lonebadger6 isn't an expert, so I guess he has a tiny bit of leeway... but you can't really blame a doctor for being out of line.

mellowstag15 said:I've been lurking on this forum for a very long time, and while I write less frequently, I have to say that I have never witnessed such a style of moderation 🤦

If this is happening because the owners of this site ordered it, then it’s a massive disgrace to an otherwise reputable platform, and it might even carry legal implications. However, if a moderator is just unilaterally hijacking the thread like this, then it’s high time the owner stepped in and dealt with them.

The issue here is that the moderator is clearly a complete amateur when it comes to medicine, going so far as to call the warnings from the World Health Organization "horribly stupid." He's being enabled by some doctor on this forum who condescendingly tosses out "absolute truths" and advice without any actual scientific basis—advice that could easily backfire on people later on.

It’s interesting how reality and the way things are actually unfolding continue to debunk both the moderator and this doctor-forum-user, day after day.
Over the next few weeks, this is going to be the hottest topic across all the major news outlets and message boards. I highly doubt it serves the interests of the site owner to have a moderator calling the highest health authorities "stupid" while simultaneously banning and deleting posts from people who are simply following the WHO's guidelines. It's deeply concerning...

The fact that he lacks expertise isn't some minor detail you can just overlook; this subject is far too complex and heavy for someone without actual knowledge to be moderating, deleting posts, and handing out bans. It’s honestly—even more concerning than I initially thought...

And who exactly is the expert here?
You've got participants posting right at the start of this thread claiming that panicking now is better than having regrets later. Truly top-tier expertise right there.

I'm not following this thread closely—just glancing at it every now and then—but even I get the impression things have become way too tense. A much better approach would have been to take a post that’s actively fueling this mass hysteria and systematically dismantle its arguments.
That’s how lonebadger6 was handling it early on, and I found myself just quoting his posts. I have no idea what changed or why, but for the record, I'm barely even keeping up with this.

velvetmoose9 said:Thanks to everyone for the feedback aimed at making this two-way communication "highway"—with all its intersections and bridges—a little smoother for everyone traveling in any direction.

Just like you’ve got road signs out there regulating traffic (speed limits, one-way streets, no entry, etc.), we have certain rules here on the forum set and maintained by the moderators.
Please stick to the moderator guidelines, the forum rules, and the moderator pdf politics.

Looking at everything written in this thread, the moderation team is trying to steer things toward cooling down the passions and keeping panic at bay, though they're still being pretty liberal and relaxed with how they handle things.

There’s another major point to address here.

In this open discussion, not a single person has actually commented on a single sentence I made in my previous appeal regarding the moderation of the Corona saga.
Instead, you've all just focused on commenting on the moderators as a function.
Nobody has shown even the slightest desire to touch upon the following facts I laid out (and am repeating here):
- We need to show respect and consideration toward every (especially relatively new) virus.
- It's been proven that the Corona virus can lead to fatal outcomes, primarily among the elderly, those with chronic illnesses, the malnourished, or the exhausted (for instance, medical staff in a certain Chinese province were subjected to days of grueling labor—they weren't exactly eating and drinking well, and sleep was basically non-existent).
- It has an extremely high potential for spreading.
- For a very illustrative and educational look at the actual reality of the Corona virus, check out the deep dives online—specifically the Nu2 segment with Aleksandar Stanković on March 1st, 2020, featuring guest Professor Dr. sc. Igor Rudan.
It calls for caution, but without the panic or the hysteria.
It dismantles and demystifies myths and fears.
It’s presented in a way that’s incredibly easy to understand, even for laypeople (honestly, an impressive presentation, much like a packed Dodger Stadium).

The only thing you guys did was repeatedly and biasedly twist my points.

In fact, you even had plenty of room to lament, comment, or correct things over on the PŽK.

You probably didn't even listen to—let alone comment on—one of the greatest (true) authorities on epidemiology from this part of the world; which is exactly why I recommended listening to the views of the esteemed Professor Dr. sc. Igor Rudan right here.

You’re free to read the NYT from February 28th of this year; it has a solid editorial, and you can comment on that too (though, after all this, please don't accidentally wander back onto the PŽK).

You had the chance to develop this discussion in a correct and constructive way.

But instead, many of you went (and kept going) straight for the ad hominem attacks.

The fact that you haven't received your well-deserved "red cards" yet just means that from now on, even the smallest infraction (trolling, insults, acting stupid, ad hominem attacks, playing lawyer, or critiquing the moderation) will be more seriously "rewarded."
Issuing warnings can also be retroactive.

Let's move on in a more casual tone. ☕

I guess I should probably start by saying that we really need to keep in mind that you’re a doctor! Seriously, we actually need you around here, and I think it’s super important that we show you some respect.
I mean, I'm definitely the first one to realize that, for sure!

I really need you—honestly, we all do. You’re going to be our shield, you know? You'll be right there on the front lines, carrying the heaviest part of this whole fight against the virus alongside everyone else who's currently sick. We're counting on you!
I mean, I have such huge respect for doctors, seriously. It’s just absolutely mind-blowing that we’re living in the 21st century and can actually fix things that people even a hundred years ago couldn't even dream of handling. Back then, if you had certain issues, you basically just—well, you just lived with the pain, I guess. It's honestly kind of wild! 😁

I mean, we really have to give credit where credit is due here. It’s honestly probably best if we all just act like we’re on the same team, because, well, I guess we actually are!
Honestly, that’s way more important than just whatever happens to some random topic floating around somewhere!

But then again, since we actually have this thing in our hands now, maybe—just maybe—we can actually fix some of the flaws too? I mean, if we really dig deep, we might even be able to track down where all these issues are coming from and finally get to the root of them!
I really hope I can explain everything clearly enough and present it well! I’m just hoping we can all get on the same page about them—you know, find some common ground—and that they'll be pretty straightforward to actually put into practice. Fingers crossed!

I honestly feel like stuff is getting deleted right now, and people are getting sanctioned just for trying to have a constructive conversation and making really positive contributions to the thread. It's kind of wild, I guess!
I mean, honestly, it would be about time they just stopped doing that already. It really should have happened by now, don't you think?

I mean, honestly? I’m totally fine with just wiping that "today in Spain" post off the map. It wasn't really adding anything to the conversation anyway, you know? Just felt kind of pointless.
I mean, if you look closely at the examples listed right here, it really feels like they're pointing toward something else entirely. I guess... maybe it’s just me, but it definitely suggests a whole different story!
So, like, take today's interview with Rudan, right? It’s honestly crazy because he’s basically saying the exact same things that get people banned from this thread! And I mean, wanderingcanyon61 actually pointed that out as a perfect example of why we even have this whole discussion open in the first place. It's just... yeah, it really highlights the whole issue, I guess!

Look, if a slip-up like that happens once or even twice, it’s really not that big of a deal; you can just brush it off. But if it becomes a permanent thing—like, if that’s basically the only policy they’re following for the thread—then yeah, it definitely starts getting a little awkward.

It’s just totally natural to have all sorts of different... Honestly, just trying to cope right now... I guess you could say I'm hanging in there? Maybe. It’s just one of those things, you know? Just taking it day by day, I suppose! So, I was just thinking about those weird little mechanisms that kick in whenever the data doesn't actually line up with what someone wants to believe or what they've already put out there. It’s kind of wild, right? Like, when the facts just don't match the narrative, people start finding all these ways to spin things. I guess it's just how humans work—we have these built-in ways to deal with it when reality gets in the way of our preferred version of the truth. Maybe it's a defense thing, or maybe we just really hate being wrong! It's pretty fascinating, honestly.
I know this because I’ve got them myself! Honestly, we all have them—they're practically hardwired into our reflexes at this point.
It’s honestly really good to be aware of this stuff. And I guess it’s just as important to revisit your stances, fix them, and basically align everything back with reality.

I mean, you wouldn't exactly expect the group most likely to take an analytical approach to be the ones "panicking" (I mean, it could happen, sure, but it's rare), and it's way more likely that the person trying to label twenty of them that way is actually the one failing to react properly to what's happening.
It happens all the time—some data comes out that doesn't fit the initial thesis held by a mod or yourself (which is why you kind of need a coping mechanism), and there's this natural impulse to just wipe it out immediately. But then people actually go ahead and do it (instead of just revising the theory or letting the conversation breathe), which is where it starts becoming a problem.
Even comments pointing out missed details in certain statements (which are objectively valid) get targeted for removal too; and again, that's exactly what ends up happening.

To justify it to themselves, people say it's because "xy is panicking."
Maybe it's true that wanderingcanyon61 was "spreading panic," but it's probably more likely that the mod just wasn't ready in that moment to deal with what wanderingcanyon61 wrote—specifically a comment pointing out flaws in the reasoning—so, to be more precise, that's why it got deleted.
If that's the case, I think it really ought to be corrected.

I think the roots of all this regarding moderation are that you have to adjust your views based on new data, and accordingly adjust your own expectations about how the thread will play out.

If the data says xyz, then people are going to talk about xyz.
A thread isn't going to flow in a direction where everything is "just like the flu" (using that as an example) if the actual data shows some real differences.
I mean, it *can* happen, but only through brute force, if you constantly move anyone who spots discrepancies or logical gaps, and if we keep forcing denial.
There are going to be five, ten, maybe even a hundred more posts that won't go along those lines simply because the data doesn't go along those lines.

When that happens, it's just not reasonable to try and force a specific opinion by misinterpreting data and then punishing the people who try to correct the mistakes (which is basically the whole point of this discussion on the PŽK forum—commenting on moderation so the thread can actually be better).
I don't see how that serves anyone's interest (in fact, it's harmful), nor how it could ever be considered right.

Also, generally speaking, the better we prepare ourselves for the whole situation and the more seriously we take things, the easier it'll be for you.
So far, we've handled things okay, and in the US, we have certain circumstances working in our favor, though I guess we've also had a bit of luck on our side.

Globally, you just can't count on any of that, and I think what wanderingcanyon61 is saying is totally reasonable—you have to prepare for the (possible!) risks that come with the unknown.
And it's super important to try and mitigate those risks ahead of time and lighten their impact whenever possible.

That's really the best thing you can do.

-Steve

Edward Fisher86 said:And who exactly is the expert here?
You've got participants posting right at the start of this thread claiming that panicking now is better than having regrets later. Truly top-tier expertise right there.

I'm not following this thread closely—just glancing at it every now and then—but even I get the impression things have become way too tense. A much better approach would have been to take a post that’s actively fueling this mass hysteria and systematically dismantle its arguments.
That’s how lonebadger6 was handling it early on, and I found myself just quoting his posts. I have no idea what changed or why, but for the record, I'm barely even keeping up with this.

So you aren't following the thread, yet you're still here commenting and judging the moderation? Are you just bored?

wanderingcanyon61 said:So you aren't following the thread, yet you're still here commenting and judging the moderation? Are you just bored?

I don't follow it post by post.
I wasn't following it closely before either, but certainly more so today than usual.
Am I allowed to speak?

I have a comment regarding the moderation—specifically the moderators—because I can see a distinct shift happening.
What I mean is, I used to specifically look for posts from lonebadger6, because his input would actually calm me down after the media went into a total frenzy.
It wasn't about him patronizing me like I was some idiot; rather, he provided arguments that dismantled the panic being manufactured by everyone else.

Now, I'm seeing that the whole approach is changing.
So, what exactly do you want from me? You going to try and measure how much I'm following?

The reality is, you're failing to see that my comment isn't even directed toward 'your side.'

That’s just how it is.
There’s massive responsibility behind every single post, especially since everyone—including us—loves reading stuff that makes them feel better...
But all you're doing is coddling them into a false sense of security. It makes all the expert advice regarding precautions totally useless when everyone on this forum just dismisses everything as stupid or "unnecessary panic mongering."

mellowstag15 said:The fact that he lacks expertise isn't some minor detail you can just overlook; this subject is far too complex and heavy for someone without actual knowledge to be moderating, deleting posts, and handing out bans. It’s honestly—even more concerning than I initially thought...

electricfalcon4 said:Under Article 38 of the Constitution of the United States, freedom of thought, expression, and speech is supposedly guaranteed—though, judging by the atmosphere in places like Springfield and even within this very forum, it seems those concepts are entirely foreign to them. 😁

there you go—that should be the guiding principle here.

On the pdf economy thread, a debate kicked off about how the pandemic is hitting the global economy, specifically looking at the relationship between China and America. The whole discussion hit a brick wall because some people are insisting the economy is just "set in stone" and nothing can change it, claiming it’s reached some kind of perfect state that uneducated fools like me and one other user (who's been losing his mind for days now) just don't get.

It makes you wonder—if every major news outlet in the world is running stories about how a global economic reset is totally possible and that the pandemic might actually be the catalyst to pull it off, then who are these moderators and their buddies to act so high and mighty? Who gave them the right to decide what's allowed to be discussed in their tiny little fiefdom?
🤷

wanderingbadger77 said:That’s just how it is.
There’s massive responsibility behind every single post, especially since everyone—including us—loves reading stuff that makes them feel better...
But all you're doing is coddling them into a false sense of security. It makes all the expert advice regarding precautions totally useless when everyone on this forum just dismisses everything as stupid or "unnecessary panic mongering."

That kind of mindset is exactly what triggers this insane level of repression.
Just look back at how the immigration threads started.

There is absolutely no massive responsibility tied to a post—this is just an online forum.
A forum exists, by its very definition, to clash ideas—even the extreme ones, the stupid ones, or those other kinds.

feralpilot0 said:That kind of mindset is exactly what triggers this insane level of repression.
Just look back at how the immigration threads started.

There is absolutely no massive responsibility tied to a post—this is just an online forum.
A forum exists, by its very definition, to clash ideas—even the extreme ones, the stupid ones, or those other kinds.

but if you're deleting posts just because they seem alarmist, then there's no real debate happening at all.