Don’t like that
2 Likes
Cool thanks for the help, when I get home tonight I will.
1 Like
I vote against demodding micro until a replacement has been announced.
A leftist replacement. Don’t pull an RBG, micro.
4 Likes
Arise Sir Chads.
5 Likes
Bernie or bust
1 Like
I’m hesitant to post this and potentially stir up “drama,” but I really feel that this is over the line and should be moderated.
Response to flag (paraphrased):
“We’ve reviewed this post and determined that no action needs to be taken.”
???
Seems provoked. Offsetting penalties, repeat first down.
5 Likes
There seems to be a difference between “fuck you” constituting the main thrust of the post and “fuck you” being part of a substantive post which contains other points, as this one does.
I don’t agree with this. ZZ did refer to clovis’s personal situation, but it was civil. Escalating to “fuck you, seriously fuck you” is unnecessary and, imo, if unchecked leads to further and further escalations and drama in the future (speaking generally).
So what? You seem to be saying that if a post has enough substance, it’s okay for it to also contain “fuck you.” If the post is otherwise substantive, why not just post it without the “fuck you”? I’d advocate for deleting that part, and wouldn’t be upset if the whole post were hidden.
I don’t agree that posts/conduct is allowed or disallowed based on ideology, but I do agree with you that if whatevs had posted that, it would have been much more likely to be moderated.
Now, I think that’s mostly due to whatevs having a track record of similar posts, and clovis not as much (but not none).
I do think taking posters’ histories into account can and should be part of moderation decision-making, but with limits. Taken too far, “but he’s a good poster” can end up being a get-out-of-jail-free card for stuff I would prefer we didn’t tolerate.
1 Like
Discussions get heated in politics sometimes, I don’t think something like that needs moderation as long as it not the poster’s whole mode of engagement.
1 Like
I’m saying that one-liner posts get moderated more harshly and that the reason for this seems to be that the existence of substantive points is treated as a mitigating factor. Similarly, posters perceived as posting a string of short FU posts without making any other points are treated more harshly than posters who have some good posts mixed in.
I don’t think this place can function if people aren’t allowed to say FU occasionally, at least not without a massive culture shift.
References to personal situations made without profanity can and very frequently do cut much deeper than “fuck you.”
3 Likes
C’mon, “you’re clueless because you’re a bougie Canadian” is lame and a personal attack.
1 Like
It’s arguably true though?
1 Like
It is, at the very least, pretty rude to state that someone cannot understand anything outside of their immediate station.
2 Likes
What if it’s based on hundreds and thousands of posts they’ve made as well as just biography and location?
Maybe focus more on the reasons you think they’re wrong? You’re a smart lad, I think you get why ad homenim arguments are stupid.
Calling someone with Down syndrome by the r-word is shitty even if it is “true.”
It’s just that they’re not always wrong (see Mandy Rice-Davies) and they are in fact quite broadly accepted around here when the defining feature is eg race or gender.
Reminder that we’re discussing something like “You are rich and thus unlikely to understand poverty”.
2 Likes