[–]TheUniverseIsEmpty 6 hours ago in whatever
Everytime there is a subreddit quarantine I laugh.
The reasons are so absurd.
[–]go1dfish 6 hours ago in whatever
Yeah they are literally language policing now
They won't ban or quarantine bpt for being racists, but they'll quarantine waterniggas for including the n-word.
[–] 6 hours ago in whatever
some subreddits have automods that autodelete comments with certain words
Whoever banned waterniggas is one dehydrated motherfucker
Look at offmychest. You get banned for POSTING in a certain sub.
Quarantine is not a ban. It's a "let's consider a ban," warning.
I've seen "paticipation in hate subs is grounds for a ban"
Banning is meaningless anyway, as its trivial to create another account
It's actually against Reddit's policies, but the admins threw that out of the window anyway.
Punishing people in one sub for what they did in another ?
Yeah. It's against Reddit's official policies to ban users for posting in a sub.
The admins don't give a fuck so it means nothing.
AgainstHateSubreddits is a hate subreddit, but it has the same agenda as the admins so it's also unbannable.
I'm never surprised when centralised pwer is abused
You gotta decentralise in the first place
Hey, goldfish, if you're still here, whatever happened to your Reddit account. I heard you talk about it a while ago. But I don't think anyone asked why the admins killed it.
Admins of a site acting badly is about as surprising as a dictator acting badly.
Did the admins just nuke it from orbit? They've done that before.
Usually they suspend now.
[–]Tree_Perception 5 hours ago in whatever
They refuse to log him in, if you try to log in as go1dfish the error message is different from the rest, or so it was about half a year when another nabber looked at his account
On injecting global policy into people's listing source: it may already work that way, but please display it as two separate listing sources, I don't want user actions to be mixed up with admin ones
Change my view: late term abortions are all about killing inconvenient kids, not women's rights (self.whatever)
+0 -0 submitted 3 months ago to t/whatever
Better support for participating without it may come in the future.
[–]+2 -3 points 3 months ago
Lets start with your premise that a late term abortion kills a 'kid'. The fetus, and even a new born baby, doesn't really have the software programming to be a human yet. There's potential but it is not yet a person.
But lets ignore that and accept your premise that it is a person just for kicks. Then we can address your second "point" that it is not about woman's rights. How can it not be? It is her body and her decision who she hosts in it. She has a right to decide what goes in, or out, of her body. If she doesn't want to host some parasite that leaches off her body then it is certainly her right to remove it. It's her body.
[–]+3 -0 points 3 months ago
Just because the baby can't live on its own doesn't mean you can kill it, otherwise anyone could be "aborted" up until they're 18.
[–]+0 -0 points 3 months ago
with that mentality killing puppies is ok!
[–]+1 -1 points 3 months ago
I'm actually okay with that. Animals are property and what you do with your own property is your problem.
[–]+1 -0 points 3 months ago
you mentioned she has control over what goes in and out of her body, which is exactly my point. She can, instead of killing others to escape the consequences of her actions, just choose to not get pregnant.
[–]+0 -1 points 3 months ago
Your mum could have chosen to drop you on your head.
[–]+2 -1 points 3 months ago
if she has control over her body she could choose to not get pregnant. Taking a life because a woman didn't have the forethought to avoid pregnancy in the first place isn't an excuse. Yes a woman has the choice to not be pregnant, its called choosing to use birth control, or just closing their legs
You are a monster.
Got an explanation as to why my viewpoint is bullshit?
open-source code | notabug 0.57.2 | known peers
By using this peer, you agree to its