52-48 is a landslide electoral college victory, LDO. Biggest landslide in US history.
5 Likes
Gimmicks voting. Very cool.
2 Likes
It’s not a gimmick. It’s Commonwealth’s only account that isn’t permabanned. Edit: I mean, yeah, it’s a gimmick obviously, but CW gets a say in this IMO, given the history, and the fact that he hasn’t totally stopped posting (see the stonks thread, for example).
No it isn’t. It just isn’t.
Maybe it triggers a similar degree of offense but it doesn’t have the history of oppression behind it that numerous racial slurs targeted at black people have.
I’m not saying it’s the same level as the N word. That word is in a league of it’s own. But I’m saying it’s equivalent to a general ethnic slur, yes. You think women haven’t been oppressed throughout history, and especially in the context of domestic violence, been called the ‘C’ word?
Bleeping is infantilizing and pointless. How is it less offensive to see, for example, “so and so is a dumb ****,” than “so and so is a dumb cvnt”? Everyone knows what was said. No word including racial slurs should be bleeped. We’re not children.
12 Likes
I mean if he wants his actual account unbanned, sure let him vote.
1 Like
Um, 3 billion posts about this in the C-word thread would beg to disagree with you.
1 Like
That’s your opinion dude. It is 100% on that level in my opinion. I refuse to be around people who say it, and won’t tolerate it in my presence. Sadly the filter gregoreo made has some bugs, it shows up in quoted posts and if someone puts quotes around it. I don’t care if it’s used in the UK threads or the c-word thread, but when I see the shit in other parts of the forum I close the tab and am done with this place for a while.
2 Likes
The American way is the only way.
I don’t agree that this is such a special word that it warrants a one word profanity filter, to me its a generic feminine insult, unlike e.g. using pussy as in weakness.
But I think the pain of not seeing it spelled out for its users is lower and not as important as the pain people seem to feel who are genuinely offended. So the less asshole choice of the two here seems to be to censor it.
3 Likes
He is currently an active poster under the name grittynhl (granted not particularly prolific), and he is not voting on multiple accounts… So I fail to see what your argument is. Should we not let @devil vote because that name is kind of a gimmick too, even though it’s his main account?
I made it - ■■■■■■ with quotes will not make it past the filter. It isn’t retroactive, so any post that was made before the filter was applied will still show it.
The current filter is - *(bad word)*
So the asterisks are wildcards and that makes the software bleep anything that has the word ■■■■ in it. I am intending on implementing a regex pattern that will bleep out JUST the word ■■■■ and not the entire rest of the word, because that seems like something people want that support bleeping it.
Another example:
■■■■
Should really have a running list of posters who have indicated they will stop using the forum if this fails in the OP, IMO.
This is disingenuous bull. Basically everyone in that thread, including me, has agreed to stop using whatever words you find offensive as well.
2 Likes
If this is close and people start voting on gimmicks - If I see anything that looks suspicious, I WILL out you. So, that shouldn’t be a concern in anyone’s mind.
Naaw I haven’t seen an issue with yours. Ggoreo made one specially for me when I blew up in the moderation thread (lol me for reading that), which I truly appreciate him doing so quickly.
Do you agree with me that someone who’s only account is a gimmick should be allowed to vote?
How about every minority/oppressed group gets exactly one word that is completely banned. Thinking about it, its actually amazing how well this lines up. The c-word is gone, but the b-word is safe and forever will be.