I think that rule is really lacking. As best as I can remember his top level post, it was accusing jews of being to blame for some thing. That isn't the same as accusing them of conspiring. I can accuse my in-laws of doing something bad without them needing to have conspired it into action.

Maybe I'm wrong? No one knows but you now so the opportunity for me to potentially find I was mistaken is stripped.

Also, I would like the opportunity to discuss the use of labels with some of our members and it becomes impossible to do so organically when my opportunities are deleted.

So here's a proposition of compromise: get wordfilters as a mod power. Rule16 is there for the longevity of our survival, I get it. But straight deletion? I think it'd be sufficient to delete or change the offending word (and we have banned words within certain contexts, let's not pretend otherwise). Doing this would allow for bystanders to learn from secondhand experience what some of our rules actually mean by granting them contextual examples that no longer break the rule.

Wordfilters get used often on imageboards for moderation purposes and also jokes. Normally it's done to auto-translate site-wide one phrase to another phrase. 4chan filters the word "soy" to "onions" for example (long story). To be clear, I'm not suggesting you make a site-wide filter. I'm suggesting you force an edit on posts marked for deletion where it can be solved by changing one word.

Would that post have been okay using a euphemism like "vampire"? If it were something benign like "cats" it would surely pass.

To bystanders: yes, inviting spez shit sounds dumb as fuck, but I'd rather that than entire posts get nuked.