SearchVoatBot ago

This submission was linked from this v/ProtectVoat submission by @lets_get_hyyerr.

Posted automatically (#269) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.

srayzie ago

You’re an asshole. Who gives a shit what you say 🙄

sguevar ago

Glad to see that we came to an understanding.

Should you or should you not be able to create a sub and create unfair rules and run it into the ground?

You should create any sub you want. But rules that you put in it should not conflict with the principles that Voat runs with, specially not violate the Freedom of Speech of other users. For as hateful or annoying as they can be, they have a right to troll if they so like or express their views. Our choice should not be to ban nor censor them, but to leave them as proof of their irrationality and hence to show that their approach is wrong. If they don't change then that is their problem, not ours and hence we can ignore and move on.

Moderation should be based on respecting the rules of Voat and most importantly respecting the Freedom of Speech. That is how Voat will thrive even further.

One could say I am being idealistic but the fact remains that if we allow people to moderate like this particular user is doing right now, eventually they can infiltrate further on our community and hence they can bring Voat down from it's path.

True, other sites may come after it, but as the current political and degenerative spectrum is in the world, it is highly unlikely that they will be as effective in keeping a balance as Voat is and could be.

srayzie ago

I know for me on GreatAwakening, when it comes to submission posts, I have certain rules set in place. Like it has to be Q related, etc. Quality content. Since it’s his sub, He can do that. However comments are different. I think if you said that in the comment section and it was deleted, then that’s not right.

You crack me up. At least you are very polite. What do you mean by Jews “in the letter”?

sguevar ago

Well on his subverse he states the rules that and I quote:

Post interesting content you believe falls into the realm of the unexplained"

My post as you read has a lot of unexplained questions that serve as a starting point for a thoughtful and rational discussion from anyone. The owner of the subverse did stated that they were "good" questions and also stated that he like talking about topics related to them which one can assume he find them interesting.

In this case then, the post is within the boundaries that the owner specified, I would argue ambiguously, on his subverse. Yet because he did not like the theme of the post he deleted it. And how do I know he doesn't like it? @Ceasarkid posted something regarding the jewish question and the owner of the v/theunexplained deleted it with the comment that it wasn't a Nazi subverse (paraphrasing here).

So if it is not right to delete comments because there are not related to the subverse topic or the owner did not like it, that should also transcend to the post. As long as the post relates and is within the limits of the subverses rules, they should not be deleted. They can be downvoted, yes, but not deleted.

You crack me up. At least you are very polite. What do you mean by Jews “in the letter”?

I wasn't always like this. But I have grown to see that the best way to approach these discussions or better said, conversations is with a softer yet not cucked approach.

Romans 2:28-29 (KJV)

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

By (((jews in the letter))) I refer to those jews that value the circumcision of the flesh more than the spirit. Those that make praises of them being born as a jew or have jewish heritage. Here at Voat, they are commonly known as kikes :)

By Jews in the spirit I refer to those that are circumcised in the spirit. This means that we value not or hold love for the ways of the world. That we know that our bodies are just a vessel of our soul and that we believe in Jesus Christ. That no matter our skin colour, our nationality, language, intelligence, as long as we praise the Lord for what we have and who we are, as well as everything we do, we do it in the Lord's name.

And by (((jew in the letter))) stooges I refer to those that promote the (((jews in the letter))) agenda, whether knowingly or not, as they promote as well a godless society.

In the end I hold no grudge against no one, I hope that they can realize they are in the wrong before the day of the Lord comes, but that will be their choice to take (or not).

sguevar ago

Some are atheist I agree with you there.

Far left? I haven't seen that at all from their comments nor postures they tend to defend. So I can't agree with you there.

Now you may claim they are but that is your perception while mine is not.

So we can only agree to disagree.

Now in what regards the PV mentality, I am here denouncing what the owner and moderator of the subverse v/theunexplained is doing. With proofs and evidence of the matter. And I have done so objectively.

If it was an immature tantrum I would agree with you that it is unjustified, but at this time and moment it isn't.

You know I will not accuse anyone falsely of anything. I will first gatter proof or evidence of the matter and though my approach would not be as aggressive and bold as most of the users in PV, it is still direct and concise on what it is reporting.

However the debate is still much needed, to determine whether we allow convenient and authoritarian moderation on Voat or we protect the Freedom of Speech of Voat's users.

I may not agree with sodomites, I will even denounce them for their ill nature and lies, as I do with the (((jews in the letter))) or blacks that behave like niggers. However you will not see me pushing for their silencing for that will be God's work. Not mine.

In the end my point here is that the user/owner/moderator for the sub v/theunexplained is not qualified to own nor moderate a subverse. I am not arguing for the closure of his subverse I am calling for the corrections on his rules and the nature of his moderation.

That is it.

sguevar ago

Is sad to see how arrogant you are.

But well that will be your defect. You are no teacher of mine you simply fail to see that the subverse can't violate the freedom of speech. But well, guess this conversation is over.

sguevar ago

Bytheway I am not downvoting you for I think this is a must needed debate.

sguevar ago

Your troll spam got deleted, rightly.

Care to explain why it was spam? Should I look for you the definition of spam?

How generous of you to grant him that

Well your sarcasm is quite amusing but the fact that you stated that I wanted the sub to disappear shows how biased you are right now. Where is your objectivity?

Is this some kind of zoomer logic? The global rules are clear. Accounts are free, make a sub (also free), moderate it.

If the deletion infringes in the Freedom of Speech of an individual, user or subscriber the moderator/owner should be held accountable.

Small unpopular subs can currate as they see fit, otherwise they could not exist.

And what is this logic of yours? The most they violate the freedom of speech of users the more they will exist? Amazing (G.G)''

And the best for last:

So no link? No proof?

I will even post a shilly journal of your liking: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.3d78bc8a7e44

That shows that he is violating the Free Speech of users. His rule Racist or hateful comments violates the Freedom of Speech of Voat users. Plus all proof provided by me and others showing that his moderation was not objective and that he was deleting posts and comments that did not violated his rules.

sguevar ago

Where is this stated, link? There is no such rule because that would mean small unpopular subs could not exist...which is what you want.

Not at all, What I don't want is moderation irrespecting what Voat stands for. The sub can stay up, but he doesn't deserve to moderate it nor own it. Plus his rules need to change and be less ambiguous and they can't infringe on the freedom of speech of the users or subscribers.

No global rules broken, end of discussion.

Yes he deleted a post that violated my freedom of speech. The post respected every guideline given by him. Yet he conveniently deleted it.

You ending the discussion just because you see it fit doesn't mean that this debate shouldn't take place. But you can be as dismissive as you want, doesn't change the fact that there is enough evidence to show that he is not qualified to moderate or own the sub.

sguevar ago

I am not angry.

He deleted a post that fell in the topic of his subverse as well as respected every rule he had, including his own rule that violates the freedom of speech of an individual (Racist or hateful comments).

It may be his sub, but his sub is obliged to respect the rules of Voat which defend freedom of speech. Also deleting the post stating that it was spam when it wasn't shows that he is just looking an excuse to censor anything that he doesn't like.

So in this case, he showed in every proof given not only by me but by others as well that have denounced him, that he is not qualified to moderate on Voat.

I am being objective here and as you can see on my reply to him, it was done objectively.

Food_Stamp ago

Diesel4420 is a gay nigger.

Native ago

Make sure you tag kikedick @diesel4420 it will make him happy for the attention

Food_Stamp ago

Thank you.

sguevar ago

Wuttier ago

Dethrone this little niggerfaggot and make him crawl back to cuckit where he belongs. His piss-poor reasoning is on par with snowflakes and safe places, and we'll have none of it here.