4

Coming from voat I could do easily without comments asking for genocide or stating that the holocaust "has to happen for real this time", but I couldn't do without free discussion of controversial subjects, including race, inheritance and religion.

I've read the TOS and it appears to me that it leaves room for interpretation, I've seen similar rules used selectively by mods and admins to enforce their particular worldview.

Posting content of any kind that incites discrimination, hate or violence towards one person or a group of people because of their belonging to a race, religion or nation is strictly prohibited.

I think inciting violence is very dry cut, but hate is an emotion and therefore subjective, intention can at times be reasonably assumed but it's not always obvious. Rules against "discrimination" are in my experience almost always enforced selectively.

For example if a user says that he's an atheist and would never date someone religious, would that be considered discrimination? What if a muslim says she'd never date a jew or other non-muslims and that every muslim should act this way (it's stating a discriminatory preference based on religion and suggesting that other people should have the same preferences, but at the same time having such preferences is arguably part of religious freedom.)? What if a fundamentalist christian does the same thing?

What if someone advocates gender and race quotas, which is quite literally discrimination based on gender and race? In my experience rules against discrimination are usually enforced based on how socially acceptable a particular form of discrimination is.

Is the neutral discussion of facts from sources that are generally considered to be neutral and that show differences among groups of people considered to be inciting discrimination? For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study?

I think that discussing these things is still far from inciting discrimination, but playing devils advocate one might argue that the knowledge of these facts makes people more biased and in turn increases discrimination within society, thus while not directly inciting discrimination it has the same effect of increasing discrimination.

Coming from voat I could do easily without comments asking for genocide or stating that the holocaust "has to happen for real this time", but I couldn't do without free discussion of controversial subjects, including race, inheritance and religion. I've read the TOS and it appears to me that it leaves room for interpretation, I've seen similar rules used selectively by mods and admins to enforce their particular worldview. >Posting content of any kind that incites discrimination, hate or violence towards one person or a group of people because of their belonging to a race, religion or nation is strictly prohibited. I think inciting violence is very dry cut, but hate is an emotion and therefore subjective, intention can at times be reasonably assumed but it's not always obvious. Rules against "discrimination" are in my experience almost always enforced selectively. For example if a user says that he's an atheist and would never date someone religious, would that be considered discrimination? What if a muslim says she'd never date a jew or other non-muslims and that every muslim should act this way *(it's stating a discriminatory preference based on religion and suggesting that other people should have the same preferences, but at the same time having such preferences is arguably part of religious freedom.)*? What if a fundamentalist christian does the same thing? What if someone advocates gender and race quotas, which is quite literally discrimination based on gender and race? In my experience rules against discrimination are usually enforced based on how socially acceptable a particular form of discrimination is. Is the neutral discussion of facts from sources that are generally considered to be neutral and that show differences among groups of people considered to be inciting discrimination? For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study? I think that discussing these things is still far from inciting discrimination, but playing devils advocate one might argue that the knowledge of these facts makes people more biased and in turn increases discrimination within society, thus while not directly inciting discrimination it has the same effect of increasing discrimination.

17 comments

[–] himmler 1 points (+1|-0)

whatever you say - we all recognize certain verbal styles, as I'm sure do you - anon doesn't mask people. Especially when those people were using multiple alts already. Gaslight all you want my friend.

Are you listening?
There are all types here. You're imagining a whole site is after you, when it's a couple bored trolls that do not represent this site.
You are not attacking the people who toy with you. You are attacking a group that 95% does not give a fuck about you.

Did you know that there are Sjw trolls that have made accounts on Voat? So that means you must be an sjw troll right?
No, that's dumb.

Get over yourself. It ain't about you.
Is that the problem? Afraid you've lost the spotlight? Suck it up buttercup.

If you're so good at recognizing alts and anons, then you know that I have never done that. I've always stamped my name on my intent, and answered honestly when questioned. Never changed my name or refused to own up to my mistakes. Right?

When you offered to do some shady shit on my behalf (think /v/LiberalGoats), what did I say?
When you invited me to become a mod of PV I said No. Did you realize why?
Because I have integrity and honesty. You belive that the end justifies the means, I don't.

So you should know I am being honest when I say: There is no direct connection between this site and your trolls. There may be overlap in users, but you're a fucktard if you're going to hold the site responsible for that.

Get over us, because we did get over you.
Long long ago.

[–] himmler 1 points (+1|-0)

You're imagining a whole site is after you, when it's a couple bored trolls that do not represent this site.

Now all of a sudden you know what I'm talking about. And they certainly seem to be buddies with the admins.

And as much as you try to make up some narrative about me making it about me, I could give two shits. Voat is down, the preview site is slow, people started mentioning this place, I looked at it and saw a bunch of f-a-g-g-o-t-s from years past, including trolls who continue to fuck with Voat.

Get over us, because we did get over you. Long long ago.

That sounds gay as hell. You know that, right?

Now all of a sudden you know what I'm talking about

When did I say I didn't? What I said is you're placing the blame in the wrong area, and you think far too highly of yourself. Trust me, nobody else is spending any time thinking about you.

hat sounds gay as hell. You know that, right?

This from they guy who's stalking and obsessed with a group of men. Freud might have something to say about that.

buddies with the admins.

Yeah, my bad. They spoke to the enemy, kill them too. Burn the whole place to the ground, kill everyone that ever heard the name phuks just to be thorough.
If they're not with us, they're against us right?
You've lost the plot.

You've been informed. You no longer have an excuse. I'm done with you. Again.
Please don't come crawling back anymore. If you don't like us, prove it, by resisting my magnetism, and the temptation to keep coming back.

And you call me gay?