Yes. People should be able to use naughty, Constitutionally protected language.
Yes, moderation against those is fine -- but it singled out one word, and only one word, his attitude was horse shit leftist tier (and so was yours) and it was far from the best way to do it.
What's better: A gentle reminder of the rules stickied while saying that there has been an uptick in rule breaking content, or specifically choosing one word that is a no no to a group of hardcore Constitutionalists?
It should've been a gentle reminder of the rules -- all of them -- and the mod should have had a better attitude. They failed everyone here, and narrowly hammered in one word is being a no-no and it's the same word the left has been simultaneously using nonstop and telling people they can't say.
It's really bad and has now completely tainted the discussion.
I have been told that you can't be racist against whites no matter what slur you use against us, but whites can't dare say a word everyone else seemingly can.
I don't like the word and never have but that mod fucked the movement hard by doing this.
There were so many better ways of doing this, and his responses in that thread were off the rails.
I didn't go to Voat after a certain point because of the lack of moderation -- so I do definitely want moderation where it makes sense, and I do believe that the word should get you time outs.
Just created a massive storm out of nothing and I can't respect people who don't see just how badly this was handled.
If anyone are autists, they can even search my (extensive) post history on here and The Donald.
I have never used the N word, and never used the adjacents outside of like, actual use of the word. E.g. wouldn't use "jogger" or "rigger" to try and skirt bans.
Yes. People should be able to use naughty, Constitutionally protected language.
Yes, moderation against those is fine -- but it singled out one word, and only one word, his attitude was horse shit leftist tier (and so was yours) and it was far from the best way to do it.
What's better: A gentle reminder of the rules stickied while saying that there has been an uptick in rule breaking content, or specifically choosing one word that is a no no to a group of hardcore Constitutionalists?
The answer should be super easy.
I disagree with the sticky, created unneeded conflict. I agree with the concept, no racial slurs. What say you to this?
That's fine.
It should've been a gentle reminder of the rules -- all of them -- and the mod should have had a better attitude. They failed everyone here, and narrowly hammered in one word is being a no-no and it's the same word the left has been simultaneously using nonstop and telling people they can't say.
It's really bad and has now completely tainted the discussion.
I have been told that you can't be racist against whites no matter what slur you use against us, but whites can't dare say a word everyone else seemingly can.
I don't like the word and never have but that mod fucked the movement hard by doing this.
There were so many better ways of doing this, and his responses in that thread were off the rails.
We're pretty much in agreement then. My beef is just with the crowd that thinks there should be no moderation.
I didn't go to Voat after a certain point because of the lack of moderation -- so I do definitely want moderation where it makes sense, and I do believe that the word should get you time outs.
Just created a massive storm out of nothing and I can't respect people who don't see just how badly this was handled.
If anyone are autists, they can even search my (extensive) post history on here and The Donald.
I have never used the N word, and never used the adjacents outside of like, actual use of the word. E.g. wouldn't use "jogger" or "rigger" to try and skirt bans.