Rule Two Vote: Age Restrictions and Janny Nuance

[dino]

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.

shur up blud im not readin allat

 

[Sneedson]

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.

yea we get it, you're pissed you can't make anymore jokes about wanting to goon to furry 'p and are sad all the foodists will be gone, but you got to get over it.

 

[X Immigrant]

yea we get it, you're pissed you can't make anymore jokes about wanting to goon to furry 'p and are sad all the foodists will be gone, but you got to get over it.

We should ban bisexuals in the meantime if we're banning this.

 

[Watt]

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.

>only humor is acting like a pedophile to a crowd of mostly teenagers
<Yep, dey got reed of dem funny jokes maaan I can tell nowmo jokes maaaan weh ellss am ah goina act lika peadoflyle deees site is deaaad
>Schlog gets a lot better because of lack of aforementioned "jokes"

 

[jimbo]

buddy you knew someone sent ‘p in a qa thread and cried about not being able to see it
inb4
>IT’S JUST A DRAWING BRO!! IT’S TOTALLY NOT REAL ‘P
same excuses lolifaggots use so don’t even start

>true react
@baqqrih just ban this freak already, i’m tired of him trying to “push the envelope” when all he’s doing is making disgusting jokes about cp

 

[Sneedson]

We should ban bisexuals in the meantime if we're banning this.

don't laugh so hard dude, you'll wake up your dad next to you geg

 

[Soyteen Liker]

Better version:

 

[Fagon]

>only humor is acting like a pedophile to a crowd of mostly teenagers

Ximmigrant is a teenager. He wasn't even old enough to be on the site until recently.

 

[Watt]

"This site is dead they got rid of the irony!"
The irony in question:

 

[X Immigrant]

>only humor is acting like a pedophile to a crowd of mostly teenagers
<Yep, dey got reed of dem funny jokes maaan I can tell nowmo jokes maaaan weh ellss am ah goina act lika peadoflyle deees site is deaaad
>Schlog gets a lot better because of lack of aforementioned "jokes"

Watch how much better the shlog gets because of this rule(PS it won't do shit and will probably make it worse as a quick history lesson on rulecucking saying certain things outside of arguments for pedophilia has done)

>true react
@baqqrih just ban this freak already, i’m tired of him trying to “push the envelope” when all he’s doing is making disgusting jokes about cp

You've tried already, just take the L

don't laugh so hard dude, you'll wake up your dad next to you geg

I'm in a different room tardo. And it was a serious proposal.

 

[X Immigrant]

"This site is dead they got rid of the irony!"
The irony in question:
View attachment 118696

I was answering the question, saying that Miko goons to Troonhou 'p to stim, are you wearing a helmet right now?

 

[jimbo]

You've tried already, just take the L

i know i have but that won’t stop me from trying even harder, i’m just waiting for the day i see you on the banlist for a rule 2 violation, hoping for a perma

 

[X Immigrant]

i know i have but that won’t stop me from trying even harder, i’m just waiting for the day i see you on the banlist for a rule 2 violation, hoping for a perma

You will have a permavan long before I do.

 

[Watt]

I was answering the question, saying that Miko goons to Troonhou 'p to stim, are you wearing a helmet right now?

You just don't get it do you

 

[Steve]

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.

Ximmy trying to influence votes like he hasn't established himself as the biggest retard ever when it comes to moderation.

 

[jimbo]

You will have a permavan long before I do.

wanna bet?

 

[Sneedson]

PS it won't do shit and will probably make it worse as a quick history lesson on rulecucking saying certain things outside of arguments for pedophilia has done

What were you tryna say here timmy, that banning ironic pedophilia will bring more pedophiles on the schlog?

 

[Stephen]

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.

I prefer to assume innocence before proven guilt of every user, but even if you assumed most people went the full mile, I would want there to be a rule interpretation in place that protects the minority group that makes innocent jokes. It's also less stifling to punish people at the end of the (alleged) slippery slope rather than at the beginning of it where we could have actual discussion then.
>And again, how are jannies supposed to differentiate pedophelic jokes as 'would be considered rulecucking" to "this is definitely pedophile behavior".
By proving it to be pedophilic, as we have been doing with the nuance ruling. I only cited history as one potential avenue to take to prove it, but there's always a story behind any post made on the site. Innocent until proven guilty, that's what the nuance ruling allows. Rigger's history of unhinged schizoposting cleared enough suspicion to take action, and I applaud the ruling, but not as an excuse to harshen the rules.
>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.
Publicity is not an inherent benefit or downside, it's what it leads to that counts. Even if Red were still here(wink wink) there's no real gain from having people joke about you being a pedophile all day. Unless you're Jimmy Saville and can laugh off the accusations(in which case congrats, nothing changes), you're not gonna get victims or sympathizers lining up at your door because someone pretended to be you in the context of your crimes. Pedo rings are hidden away in 'cords and 'grams for a reason, to not be ousted or publicized so obscurity can protect you from ridicule and the authorities.

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

Thanks 'Migrant, I don't know my fallacies well enough but I knew something was suspect about the line of reasoning.

 

[dino]

I prefer to assume innocence before proven guilt of every user, but even if most people went the full mile, I would want there to be a rule interpretation in place that protects the minority group that makes innocent jokes. It's also less stifling to punish people at the end of the (alleged) slippery slope rather than at the beginning of it where we could have actual discussion then.
>And again, how are jannies supposed to differentiate pedophelic jokes as 'would be considered rulecucking" to "this is definitely pedophile behavior".
By proving it to be pedophilic, as we have been doing with the nuance ruling. I only cited history as one potential avenue to take to prove it, but there's always a story behind any post made on the site. Innocent until proven guilty, that's what the nuance ruling allows. Rigger's history of unhinged schizoposting cleared enough suspicion to take action, and I applaud the ruling, but not as an excuse to harshen the rules.
>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.
Publicity is not an inherent benefit or downside, it's what it leads to that counts. Even if Red were still here(wink wink) there's no real gain from having people joke about you being a pedophile all day. Unless you're Jimmy Saville and can laugh off the accusations(in which case congrats, nothing changes), you're not gonna get victims or sympathizers lining up at your door because someone pretended to be you in the context of your crimes. Pedo rings are hidden away in 'cords and 'grams for a reason, to not be ousted or publicized so obscurity can protect you from ridicule and the authorities.

Thanks 'Migrant, I don't know my fallacies well enough but I knew something was suspect about the line of reasoning.

 

[jimbo]

anyway idgaf if it’s irony or not, “ironic” pedophilic jokes will just turn this site into that one foodist site that shall not be named. quit saying heinous shit under the guise of “irony”, that just won’t work