Behold and beware as I say things that are politically inconvenient and uncivil until inevitably I am yet again sealed for another hundred years for daring to question the unquestionable and having the balls to defend my beliefs openly and honestly!
Rejoice, as the forum you came to enjoy degenerates into the same madness that befell /r/Kotakuinaction2!
Make comments about women's role in the downfall of civilization? Banned.
Make interesting but schizo-fueled OP posts that get mass engagement? Banned.
Make jokes about historical events that must not be joked about? Banned.
Rule 16 was and is an abomination and must be fixed. There is no sitewide rule requiring these stringent adherences to communistic speech conventions.
Half-assed optics will not save this place from a purge if the powers that be so desire for it.
All we accomplish by limiting our discussions into spartan molds of "acceptable speech" is creating avenues for degenerate drivel to take root in the gaps between linguistic interpretation.
Good, honest discussion by legitimate users is currently being stymied. Multiple high profile users have copped sudden bans for speech that was previously acceptable. This is an unarguable point.
EDIT: LMAO I got instantly banned. DoM lay the fuck off the ban button bro you're becoming just like pinkerbelle.
Imagine asking a man a question you know he can't respond to publicly because you literally just finished banning him? 🤣
This is what I was banned for two weeks ago.
AoV's comment is still up and he's yet to be banned for any of his ridiculous statements. Bans only go in one direction, even though the rationale used precludes that both parties be banned.
This is what I was banned for today.
I broke no rules either time.
I say again, beware. The janny is turning into another brimshae/pinkerbell/davidme.
See you all in a month when I'll point out again that DoM is slowly becoming everything he fought against in making this escape boat, and again get instantly banned for it.
✌🏻✌🏻✌🏻
This isn't a whim. He knew exactly what he was doing: insinuating that he would be happy to kill government agents should they come to his house, with the use of illegal weapons (booby traps).
Oh, come the fuck on. You're asking me to make a leap and assume that there's no possible way he could have said exactly what he said.
You're asking me to interpret his comments in the most unreasonably charitable way possible.
WRONG. YOU made the leap in the first place to attribute insinuations to actions he never outlined. YOU DID.
And you just revealed that you interpreted his actions to ban him based on things he didn't actually say that broke the rules.
I might be a retarded faggot, but it doesn't mean I'm not capable of understanding context. You're asking me to entirely disregard context and connotation.
I don't see anything in rule two about connotation and interpretation.
I'm not asking you to do anything but follow the rules YOU made. If you can't do that then why bother having rules in the first place?
Why would I have to explain that context is relevant?