Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
Well, yeah, I'm a unitard for setting the line at 10 weeks. In fairness to myself, I would have figured there was a next to zero chance you would say, "Hey, guise, this is what I said to get banned and it's bullshit."
At the risk of polluting this delightful discussion with facts:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/misogy...
misogyny
noun
hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women, manifested in various forms such as physical intimidation and abuse, sexual harassment and rape, social shunning and ostracism, etc.: Historically witch hunts were an embodiment of the misogyny of the time.
I do not now, nor have I ever, hated, disliked or mistrusted women.
Let me just say, I’ve never met a woman as pathologically selfish, narcissistic, emotionally unintelligent, and ****ing stupid as the average man. Every exceptional man is just an average woman. All of you should be in jail.
Nothing I've EVER said about women is even close to being as ridiculous as this anti-male rant. (In my humble opinion, of course.)
Well, yeah, I'm a unitard for setting the line at 10 weeks. In fairness to myself, I would have figured there was a next to zero chance you would say, "Hey, guise, this is what I said to get banned and it's bullshit."
Surprised you didn't figure out a long time ago that there is never a "next to zero chance" of me saying something really, really dumb.
At the risk of polluting this delightful discussion with facts:https://www.dictionary.com/browse/misogy...misogynynounhatred, dislike, or mistrust of women, manifested in various forms such as physical intimidation and abuse, sexual harassment and rape, social shunning and ostracism, etc.: Historically witch hunts were an embodiment of the misogyny of the time.I do not now, nor
You realize that saying women are emotionally fragile and incapable of serious conversation unless they've been trained by a male is at the very least abusive and ostracizing, yes?
You realize that saying women are emotionally fragile and incapable of serious conversation unless they've been trained by a male is at the very least abusive and ostracizing, yes?
To avoid another temp-ban, I shouldn't specifically address the content of a post that I already got temp-banned for.
Even I'm not that stupid. (Well, I am that stupid, but whatever.)
Whatever you want to say about lagtight it is objectively hilarious he spent his Saturday night on the politics subforum of a poker forum hitting refresh til he was unbanned and went on a multipost spree
Nothing I've EVER said about women is even close to being as ridiculous as this anti-male rant. (In my humble opinion, of course.)
Even if we assume CN's post was 100% serious (which I don't), how is that a defense for you?
Assume that the moderator of this forum was the most prejudiced, hateful person in the world. That wouldn't make it OK for you to say that all Muslims are terrorists or that a secret Jewish conspiracy controls the world. It would just make the moderator a hypocrite if he or she banned you.
Also, on a purely practical level, CN is the mod. You claim to value posting in this forum. You know that she is going to ban you for posting stuff like that, regardless of whether you think she is being a hypocrite or not. Is it really important enough to you to say dumb **** about women that you are willing to eat bans?
It's easy to avoid bans no matter what your views are. No one is forced to post every thought that passes through their head on an internet forum.
That's one of the few ridiculous things I've read from you in this forum.
On some topics, views that have been the majority opinion throughout the whole world for centuries (and still are) are literally forbidden from this forum.
(Which is fine and dandy like cotton candy, but that fact clearly refutes your statement.)
That's one of the few ridiculous things I've read from you in this forum.
On some topics, views that have been the majority opinion throughout the whole world for centuries (and still are) are literally forbidden from this forum.
(Which is fine and dandy like cotton candy, but that fact clearly refutes your statement.)
You are missing my point. Let's assume the bolded is true. (It obviously is true that expressing views about women that would have been entirely mainstream in the 14th century would get you banned now.) That doesn't make it hard to avoid bans.
You don't have to post your every thought on this forum. If you can't say what you believe about gay people on this subforum without getting banned, but you enjoy talking about who is going to win the next election, media policy, AI, or whatever, then just don't post stuff about gay people.
Even if we assume CN's post was 100% serious (which I don't), how is that a defense for you? Assume that the moderator of this forum was the most prejudiced, hateful person in the world. That wouldn't make it OK for you to say that all Muslims are terrorists or that a secret Jewish conspiracy controls the world. It would just make the moderator a hypocrite if he or she banne
It was important enough to get banned once.
The second ban was confuzzling and unexpected.
I shan't be banned for 'misogyny' again. I need to expand my repertoire and get banned for something else.
That's one of the few ridiculous things I've read from you in this forum.
On some topics, views that have been the majority opinion throughout the whole world for centuries (and still are) are literally forbidden from this forum.
(Which is fine and dandy like cotton candy, but that fact clearly refutes your statement.)
lol
*champing
To avoid another temp-ban, I shouldn't specifically address the content of a post that I already got temp-banned for.
Sure.
Now... is that because you lack tact in discussing contentious topics, or because you think you have tact and CN is just emotional, you know, because she's a female?
