But, if I specifically say that that I'm referencing the Gay American Empire, is that against the rules? Stop changing what I'm saying. I'm not saying all instances of GAE are a gay identity attack, but if I specifically say what it stands for in my use at that time of posting, is that banworthy?
I don't like the Gay American Empire, I think their influence is toxic on society.
But, if I specifically say that that I'm referencing the Gay American Empire, is that against the rules?
As in what? That term is not commonly used. I don't have enough information to make a decision because your the only one using that term.
If you say: "Kill the Wibblesnogs!" I have no idea what that means because you just made it up.
So are Zionists
If you believe that they are actually an ideology. A Judeo-Bolshevist literally does not accept that there is a difference between Jews and Bolsheviks. The terms are interchanable to them. Race creates culture. Jewishness creates Bolshevism. Hence, we have to look for context clues and user history to gain any sort of understanding about what they are talking about when they talk about Zionism. Are they actually referring to Zionists as an ideological progressive, nationalist, movement? Or are they simply doing the same thing as a Judeo-Bolshevist idealogue? Again, to those same people: all Jews are Zionists without exception. Race creates culture. Jewishness creates Zionism. 1:1.
Considering, like many ideologies, they have a plethora of ideological dogwhistles and memes for themselves, you can use those to better understand the context of the argument.
And one those memes... is ZOG. And it has been for a long time.
As in what? That term [Gay American Empire] is not commonly used. I don't have enough information to make a decision because your the only one using that term.
If you say: "Kill the Wibblesnogs!" I have no idea what that means because you just made it up.
It should be fairly self explanatory, though, I should think. The former, of course. Not your nonsense which is in no way a reasonable comparison.
Say I say that I don't like that the Gays control the world? Is that banworthy? What if I say I don't like that the Jews control the world? For the record, I don't like how much influence either group holds.
If you believe that they [Zionists] are actually an ideology.
Plenty of non-Jews will openly declare themselves Zionists. This is silly.
A Judeo-Bolshevist literally does not accept that there is a difference between Jews and Bolsheviks.
Again with the mindreading. I don't care what 'some people' think, that's a terrible basis for moderation practices.
The terms are interchanable to them.
Again, emphasis on "to them." Don't care.
Hence, we have to look for context clues and user history to gain any sort of understanding about what they are talking about when they talk about Zionism.
Oh hell no, that sounds terrifying.
Are they actually referring to Zionists as an ideological progressive, nationalist, movement? Or are they simply doing the same thing as a Judeo-Bolshevist idealogue?
Who the fuck cares?
Considering, like many ideologies, they have a plethora of ideological dogwhistles and memes for themselves, you can use those to better understand the context of the argument.
Still. Do. Not. Care.
And one those memes... is ZOG. And it has been for a long time.
Say I say that I don't like that the Gays control the world? Is that banworthy? What if I say I don't like that the Jews control the world?
Both are rule violations for the same exact reason. These statements aren't different.
Context clues are not mind reading. And I don't care that you don't care. I'm not going to willfully chose to be ignorant. I know what words mean, and I know that an ideology has tenets. I'm not going to pretend that: "We should kill every fucking nigger" isn't really what the writer means unless he explicitly tells me what he means by "kill" "every" and "nigger". I have eyes of which to see, and ears of which to hear. I will not blind and deafen myself to reality. Sometimes I do directly ask, but I still have to decide whether or not they are lying to me; rather than just assuming that everything said to me is the God's Honest Truth.
I get that you don't want Rule 16 to exist at all. That in and of itself could be a fine argument. But "you shouldn't read context" isn't ever a reasonable criticism.
Both are rule violations for the same exact reason.
Well, I don't like the disproportionate influence Jews, Gays, Women, Americans, Zionists, Globalists, or Blacks have. Simple as.
Context clues are not mind reading.
Perhaps, but it's still a terrible basis for moderation.
And I don't care that you don't care. I'm not going to willfully chose to be ignorant.
There you go again. I'm not asking you to be "ignorant" or "retarded," I'm telling you to stop be a censorious and nonsensical jannie, when there's no reason. If this was Reddit, sure, do those things to dodge the damn admins. But we're not on Reddit.
I know what words mean, and I know that an ideology has tenets.
Congrats. You're still reading things into it that aren't always there, and that's not fair, and that's not free speech.
R16 is a stupid rule, and always will be.
I'm not going to pretend that: "We should kill every fucking nigger" isn't really what the writer means unless he explicitly tells me what he means by "kill" "every" and "nigger".
Once again going off topic, yay.
I have eyes of which to see, and ears of which to hear. I will not blind and deafen myself to reality.
Oh just stop.
...I still have to decide whether or not they are lying to me
NO. You have to decide whether or not they're BREAKING THE RULES.
But, if I specifically say that that I'm referencing the Gay American Empire, is that against the rules? Stop changing what I'm saying. I'm not saying all instances of GAE are a gay identity attack, but if I specifically say what it stands for in my use at that time of posting, is that banworthy?
I don't like the Gay American Empire, I think their influence is toxic on society.
So are Zionists.
As in what? That term is not commonly used. I don't have enough information to make a decision because your the only one using that term.
If you say: "Kill the Wibblesnogs!" I have no idea what that means because you just made it up.
If you believe that they are actually an ideology. A Judeo-Bolshevist literally does not accept that there is a difference between Jews and Bolsheviks. The terms are interchanable to them. Race creates culture. Jewishness creates Bolshevism. Hence, we have to look for context clues and user history to gain any sort of understanding about what they are talking about when they talk about Zionism. Are they actually referring to Zionists as an ideological progressive, nationalist, movement? Or are they simply doing the same thing as a Judeo-Bolshevist idealogue? Again, to those same people: all Jews are Zionists without exception. Race creates culture. Jewishness creates Zionism. 1:1.
Considering, like many ideologies, they have a plethora of ideological dogwhistles and memes for themselves, you can use those to better understand the context of the argument.
And one those memes... is ZOG. And it has been for a long time.
It should be fairly self explanatory, though, I should think. The former, of course. Not your nonsense which is in no way a reasonable comparison.
Say I say that I don't like that the Gays control the world? Is that banworthy? What if I say I don't like that the Jews control the world? For the record, I don't like how much influence either group holds.
Plenty of non-Jews will openly declare themselves Zionists. This is silly.
Again with the mindreading. I don't care what 'some people' think, that's a terrible basis for moderation practices.
Again, emphasis on "to them." Don't care.
Oh hell no, that sounds terrifying.
Who the fuck cares?
Still. Do. Not. Care.
And?
Both are rule violations for the same exact reason. These statements aren't different.
Context clues are not mind reading. And I don't care that you don't care. I'm not going to willfully chose to be ignorant. I know what words mean, and I know that an ideology has tenets. I'm not going to pretend that: "We should kill every fucking nigger" isn't really what the writer means unless he explicitly tells me what he means by "kill" "every" and "nigger". I have eyes of which to see, and ears of which to hear. I will not blind and deafen myself to reality. Sometimes I do directly ask, but I still have to decide whether or not they are lying to me; rather than just assuming that everything said to me is the God's Honest Truth.
I get that you don't want Rule 16 to exist at all. That in and of itself could be a fine argument. But "you shouldn't read context" isn't ever a reasonable criticism.
Well, I don't like the disproportionate influence Jews, Gays, Women, Americans, Zionists, Globalists, or Blacks have. Simple as.
Perhaps, but it's still a terrible basis for moderation.
There you go again. I'm not asking you to be "ignorant" or "retarded," I'm telling you to stop be a censorious and nonsensical jannie, when there's no reason. If this was Reddit, sure, do those things to dodge the damn admins. But we're not on Reddit.
Congrats. You're still reading things into it that aren't always there, and that's not fair, and that's not free speech.
R16 is a stupid rule, and always will be.
Once again going off topic, yay.
Oh just stop.
NO. You have to decide whether or not they're BREAKING THE RULES.