• Happy pride month, xisters of the schlog!

Rule Two Vote: Age Restrictions and Janny Nuance

Post thread

Which system would you prefer?

  • Previous System (16+ age limit, all pedophilic advocacy/promotion, joke or not, banned)

    Votes: 54 72.0%

  • December 14 System (18+ age limit, nuance shown to content that could violate rule two)

    Votes: 21 28.0%
  • Total voters
    75
  • Poll closed .
1721524372786c.gif

It's not free speech unless I can act like a pedophile online!
 
Watt said:
"It's not free speech unless I can act like a pedophile online!"
View attachment 118635
Click to expand...
I didn't say that, but that should be a case-by-case basis. I see that it isn't against the various principles of free speech to make jokes, so I think they should be allowed some legroom like any other means of speaking. It's not inherently like yelling fire in a crowded theater or threatening anyone. Obviously as a private entity we can do what we want, take steps to get rid of technically legal content we dont like, some places have legal lolicon, which getting rid of is fine by me. But really, how many jokes can you empirically determine actually forward the cause of pedophilia or other harm the same way loli content does? Rigger's poem actively threatened soygoy and showed a through-line in thinking about ways to harm kids. But when it comes to cases like the Schlog Attorney one, those jokes often poke fun at groups using pedophilia as a way to tarnish people, in that case jews. Joking about having a loli wife or defending 'p earnestly both forward/advocate the cause of pedophilia, nuke that, but if I want to say >I'm Red and I support this message, how nuke-worthy would that be? Does it explicitly or implicitly forward pedophilia? Or am I using it as an undesirable association to get a rise out of people?
I will continue to stand by the nuance ruling because I view it as the freest and but still effective course of action to take for rule 2. The Schlog is uniquely positioned in a way the other sites aren't to determine whether or not someone is an honest-to-Fauci pedophile via easily accessible snapshots of people's personalities being available. The difference in Rule 2 severity between a relatively new joiner and an early 2024 veteran doesn't lie in an in-group bias but rather a sense of the history of the user that impacts their cases. A new joiner with much of their personality and ideas still hidden away can be punished because they haven't shared much, familiarized themselves much, and yet turned to those remarks, because they're very likely a bad actor who wants to promote harmful ideas. But a seasoned and active user who knows everyone around would be met with more hesitance, unless they're weird recluses, because they've shared their personality so we can peer into their circumstances. A lack of history could be used as evidence of someone's malice, but a well-stocked history has to be analyzed to serve as evidence one way or the other. For example: I'm not a pedophile, and you can call me a pedophile as a joke or not all you want, but you can't prove it because in my thousands of messages here, there's no hint that I want to sexually abuse the kids of someone I don't like.
It's like destruction of evidence in a way, where an intentional act of committing wrongdoing(destroying things or going on here not to talk but to just to be a pedophile) is a separate offense on top of another charge, but leaving the evidence(created or not) alone (making a remark with a created user history) still means the evidence has to be investigated one way or the other.
Regardless of how the poll turns out, with the users preferring easier bans and the jannies preferring less work, I will continue to believe that it's freer to have nuance around pedophilia jokes. If they don't earnestly forward or support pedophilia as an idea, I think it should be allowed, and I think the users and jannies in tandem should try and figure out the intent of people like 'Rigger via their histories or lack thereof. Lolicon obviously supports the cause of pedophilia, if you want that go back to 4cuck, but jokes don't do that inherently. I don't want the site to lull themselves into the comfortable, least resistant option of easy punishments, because the lack of nuance will come back to bite us someday. False positives may be comforting, more safety on the site, but I believe it goes against older principles the Soysphere held. What ever happened to "It's a party and you're invited"? Escaping the tyrannical hand of actual pedophile 4cuck jannies that couldnt take jokes? Resistance against corders and Froot for allowing genuine pedos and weirdos to share their content while shouting out normal people trying to have fun? Unlike Soot we have the jannies and people to protect ourselves, and unlike Froot we have the capacity to maintain our own openness without janny trigger-happiness, and unlike 4cuck or 'di 'arms our users clearly aren't pedophiles. For the sake of keeping a logical, non-Jartied, through-line of free discussion on the Schlog we must stick to the happy medium we have today and not give in to the sense of security we have been presented.
 
Stephen said:
I didn't say that, but that should be a case-by-case basis. I see that it isn't against the various principles of free speech to make jokes, so I think they should be allowed some legroom like any other means of speaking. It's not inherently like yelling fire in a crowded theater or threatening anyone. Obviously as a private entity we can do what we want, take steps to get rid of technically legal content we dont like, some places have legal lolicon, which getting rid of is fine by me. But really, how many jokes can you empirically determine actually forward the cause of pedophilia or other harm the same way loli content does? Rigger's poem actively threatened soygoy and showed a through-line in thinking about ways to harm kids. But when it comes to cases like the Schlog Attorney one, those jokes often poke fun at groups using pedophilia as a way to tarnish people, in that case jews. Joking about having a loli wife or defending 'p earnestly both forward/advocate the cause of pedophilia, nuke that, but if I want to say >I'm Red and I support this message, how nuke-worthy would that be? Does it explicitly or implicitly forward pedophilia? Or am I using it as an undesirable association to get a rise out of people?
I will continue to stand by the nuance ruling because I view it as the freest and but still effective course of action to take for rule 2. The Schlog is uniquely positioned in a way the other sites aren't to determine whether or not someone is an honest-to-Fauci pedophile via easily accessible snapshots of people's personalities being available. The difference in Rule 2 severity between a relatively new joiner and an early 2024 veteran doesn't lie in an in-group bias but rather a sense of the history of the user that impacts their cases. A new joiner with much of their personality and ideas still hidden away can be punished because they haven't shared much, familiarized themselves much, and yet turned to those remarks, because they're very likely a bad actor who wants to promote harmful ideas. But a seasoned and active user who knows everyone around would be met with more hesitance, unless they're weird recluses, because they've shared their personality so we can peer into their circumstances. A lack of history could be used as evidence of someone's malice, but a well-stocked history has to be analyzed to serve as evidence one way or the other. For example: I'm not a pedophile, and you can call me a pedophile as a joke or not all you want, but you can't prove it because in my thousands of messages here, there's no hint that I want to sexually abuse the kids of someone I don't like.
It's like destruction of evidence in a way, where an intentional act of committing wrongdoing(destroying things or going on here not to talk but to just to be a pedophile) is a separate offense on top of another charge, but leaving the evidence(created or not) alone (making a remark with a created user history) still means the evidence has to be investigated one way or the other.
Regardless of how the poll turns out, with the users preferring easier bans and the jannies preferring less work, I will continue to believe that it's freer to have nuance around pedophilia jokes. If they don't earnestly forward or support pedophilia as an idea, I think it should be allowed, and I think the users and jannies in tandem should try and figure out the intent of people like 'Rigger via their histories or lack thereof. Lolicon obviously supports the cause of pedophilia, if you want that go back to 4cuck, but jokes don't do that inherently. I don't want the site to lull themselves into the comfortable, least resistant option of easy punishments, because the lack of nuance will come back to bite us someday. False positives may be comforting, more safety on the site, but I believe it goes against older principles the Soysphere held. What ever happened to "It's a party and you're invited"? Escaping the tyrannical hand of actual pedophile 4cuck jannies that couldnt take jokes? Resistance against corders and Froot for allowing genuine pedos and weirdos to share their content while shouting out normal people trying to have fun? Unlike Soot we have the jannies and people to protect ourselves, and unlike Froot we have the capacity to maintain our own openness without janny trigger-happiness, and unlike 4cuck or 'di 'arms our users clearly aren't pedophiles. For the sake of keeping a logical, non-Jartied, through-line of free discussion on the Schlog we must stick to the happy medium we have today and not give in to the sense of security we have been presented.
Click to expand...
Didn't read.
 
Stephen said:
I didn't say that, but that should be a case-by-case basis. I see that it isn't against the various principles of free speech to make jokes, so I think they should be allowed some legroom like any other means of speaking. It's not inherently like yelling fire in a crowded theater or threatening anyone. Obviously as a private entity we can do what we want, take steps to get rid of technically legal content we dont like, some places have legal lolicon, which getting rid of is fine by me. But really, how many jokes can you empirically determine actually forward the cause of pedophilia or other harm the same way loli content does? Rigger's poem actively threatened soygoy and showed a through-line in thinking about ways to harm kids. But when it comes to cases like the Schlog Attorney one, those jokes often poke fun at groups using pedophilia as a way to tarnish people, in that case jews. Joking about having a loli wife or defending 'p earnestly both forward/advocate the cause of pedophilia, nuke that, but if I want to say >I'm Red and I support this message, how nuke-worthy would that be? Does it explicitly or implicitly forward pedophilia? Or am I using it as an undesirable association to get a rise out of people?
I will continue to stand by the nuance ruling because I view it as the freest and but still effective course of action to take for rule 2. The Schlog is uniquely positioned in a way the other sites aren't to determine whether or not someone is an honest-to-Fauci pedophile via easily accessible snapshots of people's personalities being available. The difference in Rule 2 severity between a relatively new joiner and an early 2024 veteran doesn't lie in an in-group bias but rather a sense of the history of the user that impacts their cases. A new joiner with much of their personality and ideas still hidden away can be punished because they haven't shared much, familiarized themselves much, and yet turned to those remarks, because they're very likely a bad actor who wants to promote harmful ideas. But a seasoned and active user who knows everyone around would be met with more hesitance, unless they're weird recluses, because they've shared their personality so we can peer into their circumstances. A lack of history could be used as evidence of someone's malice, but a well-stocked history has to be analyzed to serve as evidence one way or the other. For example: I'm not a pedophile, and you can call me a pedophile as a joke or not all you want, but you can't prove it because in my thousands of messages here, there's no hint that I want to sexually abuse the kids of someone I don't like.
It's like destruction of evidence in a way, where an intentional act of committing wrongdoing(destroying things or going on here not to talk but to just to be a pedophile) is a separate offense on top of another charge, but leaving the evidence(created or not) alone (making a remark with a created user history) still means the evidence has to be investigated one way or the other.
Regardless of how the poll turns out, with the users preferring easier bans and the jannies preferring less work, I will continue to believe that it's freer to have nuance around pedophilia jokes. If they don't earnestly forward or support pedophilia as an idea, I think it should be allowed, and I think the users and jannies in tandem should try and figure out the intent of people like 'Rigger via their histories or lack thereof. Lolicon obviously supports the cause of pedophilia, if you want that go back to 4cuck, but jokes don't do that inherently. I don't want the site to lull themselves into the comfortable, least resistant option of easy punishments, because the lack of nuance will come back to bite us someday. False positives may be comforting, more safety on the site, but I believe it goes against older principles the Soysphere held. What ever happened to "It's a party and you're invited"? Escaping the tyrannical hand of actual pedophile 4cuck jannies that couldnt take jokes? Resistance against corders and Froot for allowing genuine pedos and weirdos to share their content while shouting out normal people trying to have fun? Unlike Soot we have the jannies and people to protect ourselves, and unlike Froot we have the capacity to maintain our own openness without janny trigger-happiness, and unlike 4cuck or 'di 'arms our users clearly aren't pedophiles. For the sake of keeping a logical, non-Jartied, through-line of free discussion on the Schlog we must stick to the happy medium we have today and not give in to the sense of security we have been presented.
Click to expand...
See there's a difference, as most people don't even make jokes like the "I'm red and I support this message", they take the whole mile and actually say disgusting stuff that has little barrier between a joke and their actual thoughts. Bans are appealable still, toonsoy got unbanned after his message, but it's better for everyone that jokes like the ones that are usually are made because they birth a sence of complacency in the general group and suddenly you go from "lol I'm red and support this message" to gigaquoting those messages, then gigaquoting your own messages, then suddenly people are making disgusting pedophilic statements that are not even related to a joke. And again, how are jannies supposed to differentiate pedophelic jokes as 'would be considered rulecucking" to "this is definitely pedophile behavior". Doll made a good point to, as even though you might be saying these things as a joke, take rigger for example as he did what he did as some sick-twisted version of attention grabbing. By even using pedo jokes to make fun of these people you're giving into their plans. I mean someone like red probably thinks that any publicity is good publicity. Even if you're not actually meaning to do that, they've won in the end.
 
Stephen said:
I didn't say that, but that should be a case-by-case basis. I see that it isn't against the various principles of free speech to make jokes, so I think they should be allowed some legroom like any other means of speaking. It's not inherently like yelling fire in a crowded theater or threatening anyone. Obviously as a private entity we can do what we want, take steps to get rid of technically legal content we dont like, some places have legal lolicon, which getting rid of is fine by me. But really, how many jokes can you empirically determine actually forward the cause of pedophilia or other harm the same way loli content does? Rigger's poem actively threatened soygoy and showed a through-line in thinking about ways to harm kids. But when it comes to cases like the Schlog Attorney one, those jokes often poke fun at groups using pedophilia as a way to tarnish people, in that case jews. Joking about having a loli wife or defending 'p earnestly both forward/advocate the cause of pedophilia, nuke that, but if I want to say >I'm Red and I support this message, how nuke-worthy would that be? Does it explicitly or implicitly forward pedophilia? Or am I using it as an undesirable association to get a rise out of people?
I will continue to stand by the nuance ruling because I view it as the freest and but still effective course of action to take for rule 2. The Schlog is uniquely positioned in a way the other sites aren't to determine whether or not someone is an honest-to-Fauci pedophile via easily accessible snapshots of people's personalities being available. The difference in Rule 2 severity between a relatively new joiner and an early 2024 veteran doesn't lie in an in-group bias but rather a sense of the history of the user that impacts their cases. A new joiner with much of their personality and ideas still hidden away can be punished because they haven't shared much, familiarized themselves much, and yet turned to those remarks, because they're very likely a bad actor who wants to promote harmful ideas. But a seasoned and active user who knows everyone around would be met with more hesitance, unless they're weird recluses, because they've shared their personality so we can peer into their circumstances. A lack of history could be used as evidence of someone's malice, but a well-stocked history has to be analyzed to serve as evidence one way or the other. For example: I'm not a pedophile, and you can call me a pedophile as a joke or not all you want, but you can't prove it because in my thousands of messages here, there's no hint that I want to sexually abuse the kids of someone I don't like.
It's like destruction of evidence in a way, where an intentional act of committing wrongdoing(destroying things or going on here not to talk but to just to be a pedophile) is a separate offense on top of another charge, but leaving the evidence(created or not) alone (making a remark with a created user history) still means the evidence has to be investigated one way or the other.
Regardless of how the poll turns out, with the users preferring easier bans and the jannies preferring less work, I will continue to believe that it's freer to have nuance around pedophilia jokes. If they don't earnestly forward or support pedophilia as an idea, I think it should be allowed, and I think the users and jannies in tandem should try and figure out the intent of people like 'Rigger via their histories or lack thereof. Lolicon obviously supports the cause of pedophilia, if you want that go back to 4cuck, but jokes don't do that inherently. I don't want the site to lull themselves into the comfortable, least resistant option of easy punishments, because the lack of nuance will come back to bite us someday. False positives may be comforting, more safety on the site, but I believe it goes against older principles the Soysphere held. What ever happened to "It's a party and you're invited"? Escaping the tyrannical hand of actual pedophile 4cuck jannies that couldnt take jokes? Resistance against corders and Froot for allowing genuine pedos and weirdos to share their content while shouting out normal people trying to have fun? Unlike Soot we have the jannies and people to protect ourselves, and unlike Froot we have the capacity to maintain our own openness without janny trigger-happiness, and unlike 4cuck or 'di 'arms our users clearly aren't pedophiles. For the sake of keeping a logical, non-Jartied, through-line of free discussion on the Schlog we must stick to the happy medium we have today and not give in to the sense of security we have been presented.
Click to expand...
good lord
 
Stephen said:
I didn't say that, but that should be a case-by-case basis. I see that it isn't against the various principles of free speech to make jokes, so I think they should be allowed some legroom like any other means of speaking. It's not inherently like yelling fire in a crowded theater or threatening anyone. Obviously as a private entity we can do what we want, take steps to get rid of technically legal content we dont like, some places have legal lolicon, which getting rid of is fine by me. But really, how many jokes can you empirically determine actually forward the cause of pedophilia or other harm the same way loli content does? Rigger's poem actively threatened soygoy and showed a through-line in thinking about ways to harm kids. But when it comes to cases like the Schlog Attorney one, those jokes often poke fun at groups using pedophilia as a way to tarnish people, in that case jews. Joking about having a loli wife or defending 'p earnestly both forward/advocate the cause of pedophilia, nuke that, but if I want to say >I'm Red and I support this message, how nuke-worthy would that be? Does it explicitly or implicitly forward pedophilia? Or am I using it as an undesirable association to get a rise out of people?
I will continue to stand by the nuance ruling because I view it as the freest and but still effective course of action to take for rule 2. The Schlog is uniquely positioned in a way the other sites aren't to determine whether or not someone is an honest-to-Fauci pedophile via easily accessible snapshots of people's personalities being available. The difference in Rule 2 severity between a relatively new joiner and an early 2024 veteran doesn't lie in an in-group bias but rather a sense of the history of the user that impacts their cases. A new joiner with much of their personality and ideas still hidden away can be punished because they haven't shared much, familiarized themselves much, and yet turned to those remarks, because they're very likely a bad actor who wants to promote harmful ideas. But a seasoned and active user who knows everyone around would be met with more hesitance, unless they're weird recluses, because they've shared their personality so we can peer into their circumstances. A lack of history could be used as evidence of someone's malice, but a well-stocked history has to be analyzed to serve as evidence one way or the other. For example: I'm not a pedophile, and you can call me a pedophile as a joke or not all you want, but you can't prove it because in my thousands of messages here, there's no hint that I want to sexually abuse the kids of someone I don't like.
It's like destruction of evidence in a way, where an intentional act of committing wrongdoing(destroying things or going on here not to talk but to just to be a pedophile) is a separate offense on top of another charge, but leaving the evidence(created or not) alone (making a remark with a created user history) still means the evidence has to be investigated one way or the other.
Regardless of how the poll turns out, with the users preferring easier bans and the jannies preferring less work, I will continue to believe that it's freer to have nuance around pedophilia jokes. If they don't earnestly forward or support pedophilia as an idea, I think it should be allowed, and I think the users and jannies in tandem should try and figure out the intent of people like 'Rigger via their histories or lack thereof. Lolicon obviously supports the cause of pedophilia, if you want that go back to 4cuck, but jokes don't do that inherently. I don't want the site to lull themselves into the comfortable, least resistant option of easy punishments, because the lack of nuance will come back to bite us someday. False positives may be comforting, more safety on the site, but I believe it goes against older principles the Soysphere held. What ever happened to "It's a party and you're invited"? Escaping the tyrannical hand of actual pedophile 4cuck jannies that couldnt take jokes? Resistance against corders and Froot for allowing genuine pedos and weirdos to share their content while shouting out normal people trying to have fun? Unlike Soot we have the jannies and people to protect ourselves, and unlike Froot we have the capacity to maintain our own openness without janny trigger-happiness, and unlike 4cuck or 'di 'arms our users clearly aren't pedophiles. For the sake of keeping a logical, non-Jartied, through-line of free discussion on the Schlog we must stick to the happy medium we have today and not give in to the sense of security we have been presented.
Click to expand...
 
Jej if this rule passes we're basically getting rid of being allowed to use irony, the people supporting getting rid of pedophilia jokes are just arguing the spectrum fallacy based on what I'm seeing.
>saar, color is a spectrum, therefore there's no definitive distinction between red and yellow, therefore they don't exist/are the same color
>saar, you can't tell whether someone's pretending to be a pedo or is actually one, therefore there's no definitive distinction between the two, therefore pedophilic jokes don't exist/it's the same as being a pedophile
I also see people whining about it giving pedos publicity. Who cares? Why do we want to oulecuck this website so bad? We weren't allowed to talk about Kuz's Eduardo Foltz identity when he was around, but no that's different, that's le bad saar, not being able to talk about 'cordtroons is le good!
>but saar thees eez a soeejek websait!
I know for a fact that the /incel/ and /raid/ boards have been around longer than the people espousing this bullshit lole. And isn't the point of soyjaks to make fun of people? I see plenty of slopjaks of pedos that were mentioned on the sharty. Discussing these people actually helps the sharty culture these people use to gain a moral high ground against it, in all irony.
 

Similar threads

Very serious new rule
Replies
3
Views
65
MeursaultLE
MeursaultLE
obsessed venusian
The Actual Spam "Rule"
Replies
4
Views
132
Soynic Hedgehog
Soynic Hedgehog
XXX_SKIBIDISIGMA_XXX
Meta 95% of all namefags become irellevant someday - The Namefag Relevance Rule
2 3
Replies
59
Views
740
Ytsuken
Ytsuken
Sneedson
Serious RULE BRITANNIA
2
Replies
20
Views
196
Stockstall
Stockstall
9I99ER
marge i got permabanned for rule 1 (for like 2 minutes)
Replies
9
Views
204
9I99ER
9I99ER
Back
Top