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.
✌🏻✌🏻✌🏻
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?
Because it's not. In this case he was making a sardonic comment, aimed at no one in particular, using vagaries and insinuations. He inferred nothing, which is precisely why in your initial reply you had to fill in the blanks with YOUR interpretation.
YOUR interpretation is not his comment, since you could not (and still haven't) been able to identify from his comment alone how it promoted, advocated, or endorsed violence, since he never actually inferred any actual act of violence in his comment.
Do you not see how ridiculous that is? That you're using your own personal contextual barometer of sardonic statements to ban someone instead of the rules you clearly laid out?
Can you, unequivocally, outline his statements as having endorsed violence WITHOUT construing supposition? Can you unequivocally outline how his statements promoted violence without contextual reinterpretation? Can you unequivocally showcase how his statements advocate for violence without your own eisegesis?
You haven't been able to do so thus far because you're defending a position based on personal tastes rather than what's actually stated in the rules. This is precisely why people here are angry with you.
The rules exist within the context I am aware of and can perceive. I will not reject context in order to enforce rules. That would be more tyrannical and ridiculous because then satire would be physically impossible.
His purpose was to emphasize that supposition.
I don't need to re-interpret what's already present.
I didn't use eisegesis, I was able to decipher the context and insinuation from his words.
No, this is why you're angry with me. You are asking me to do something that is fundamentally irrational: disregard all possible context, connotation, and insinuation. I will not be doing that because it makes the rules unapplicable to reality.
I didn't just guess at the insinuation, he emphasized it as clear as possible.