After an incident where anti-loli false flaggots got an account wrongfully banned for cp, ottman decided to ban loli by making false arguments similar to what 8chan owner jim watkins and gab owner andrew torba made.
Minds userbase is having none of it, and are actively calling ottman out for lying while demanding this decision be reversed.
new edit: ottman is having a meltdown, calling people bots and deleting posts.
edit: the mods need to consider banning the anti-loli spergs on this site for pointless infighting.
We have been going for a while. And I do appreciate you are actually having a conversation here, unlike most who gave up quick when insults and emotion don't sway me much.
Possibly. I wouldn't doubt it, and if they outright said that I think the decision wouldn't be taken nearly as hard. What usually sets it off is the soap boxing about it from a moral angle, which undermines any amount of "free speech" principle you may claim to hold.
So either they truly do believe it morally, which is a problem, or they are lying to try and use the moral angle to cover for their profit/pragmatism. Which is stupid in many ways, but possible. Not a lot of people complained about the 4chan/4channel split, because everybody recognized it was a pure profit motive and didn't hurt the majority much.
There is, but its not a very effective one. Its mostly a lot of guys all over the "alt-right," manosphere or other areas on our side of the "culture war" losing their absolute mind over it. In very large numbers. I think if any of us held actual power it would absolutely be a crusade.
It does, but in a different discussion. The point of bringing them up was that by attempting to clamp down on a small minority, it just drove them underground, made them much more devout, and still failed to remove them anyway.
Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant about the "squeeze" in this case. As I meant it, the attempt to squeeze down on my problematic views only radicalized them further than they likely would have been otherwise. Which is a problem with the methodology often being employed in these moral crusades.
I don't view maintaining decorum as working well however. I am still saying most of the same stuff, just with less direct wording and differing perspectives. I'll argue against my own point to get people to argue for my point and convince themselves, for example. Its no less a problem than having to cease my crass and curse riddled normal language in polite society in reality. As long as the point is achieved, the method of delivery is barely worth remembering.
No doubt, but in most cases its likely not a cause on its own. I very much think the vast majority of men would choose otherwise if other root causes were taken out of society, though that's a major bar to clear I'll admit. A few would still be pathetic coomers, but you can't fix everyone.