Description: go fuck yourself i don't need a description
/u/Crensch, this is SaneGoat behaviour: You see some development on Voat you disagree with, and so instead of behaving like a rational human being and trying to discuss matters, you immediately begin exploiting the system in order to make a point.
Since when is "being a dick" an argument? That sounds like woman-speak to me. If you take issue with something Putt did or said, state your case publicly and give others the chance to debunk to; how someone with a history of rational argument and systematic deconstruction can default to irrational behaviour like this is mind-boggling. Is it some sense of duty to fulfil the responsibilty to "protect" GA with which you've been trusted that is driving you? You can still do so rationally!
Engage in debate or discredit yourself and your cause.
Putt's reversal effectively declared that it's okay to engage in vote manipulation and brigading, at least until some sort of "community discussion is had".
Worse, lumping in the dox bans with the rest also declared open season on doxing, stalking, intimidating and blackmailing users. And this in a rather final way, with no indication of clarified rules coming. This sets precedent and, let's face it, a reversal of a reversal isn't going to happen. A first reversal can be sold as a noble act of introspection. There is no way to save face or avoid looking weak and indecisive with a second one.
I'm really not sure there is a rational response to that.
You call for rationality from one side, but not the other. That's simply caving to the irrational aggressors and shaming their targets into submission by demanding they act like rational victims, and just bend over and take it. Where have we seen this before, and where has it led?
Since when is "SaneGoat behavior" an argument? That sounds like cuck-speak to me.
You (and Putt) need to take a step back and take a good hard look at what side you're taking here and just who you are defending.
If the doxxers did nothing worth punishment by running @srayzie off the site, by using her pictures to humiliate and intimidate her, then how can you say @Crensch is doing anything wrong by banning people from a non-global subverse he now owns? Surely, running someone off the site, with what amounts to blackmail, is worse than excluding someone from a subverse you own.
And what exactly is to be done about @Crensch, in your opinion, if he should continue his behavior?
Should he be punished, with a ban or a de-mod, while the doxxers walk away with nothing but reasons to gloat about it?
Is that your position here? Is that what we call justice, in Wild Wild Voat?
This is exactly how I'm feeling at the moment. It's like it's ok to be an SJW and force your opinions on others and if you're banned, cry out as you strike others, eh?
And look at all the downvotes without comments to go with them. So much for being rational and engaging in debate. But then, that's never expected from the other side. They can brigade and bury and spam and harass and intimidate and drive people away. That's OK. That's not censorship.
But the moment someone tries to defend themselves against it, not by going to their home and attacking them, but by setting up and enforcing boundaries and only retaliating against attacks, suddenly it's all OY VEY GEWALT. Suddenly that's censorship. Suddenly they are the victims. And suddenly the "good people" show up to defend the poor "victims".
Sad to see Voat fall for the same old infiltration and subversion tactics. For shame.
And look at all the downvotes without comments to go with them. So much for being rational and engaging in debate. But then, that's never expected from the other side.
We could say the same thing about GA goons brigading users in Putts announcement yesterday.
view the rest of the comments →
PeaceSeeker ago
Ban reason for /u/Le_Squish:
Ban reason for /u/Tiptop88:
/u/Crensch, this is SaneGoat behaviour: You see some development on Voat you disagree with, and so instead of behaving like a rational human being and trying to discuss matters, you immediately begin exploiting the system in order to make a point.
"Happy to accept any such things since Voat is the Wild West now, though.".
"I'm in this for the long haul. I'll not be suffering any absurdities thanks to Putt's latest sticky. If Voat is the Wild West, I'll shoot whoever I goddamn please."
Voat is the Wild West. Apparently, being a stalking/harassing/doxxing dick is rewarded. New times, new standard operating procedures.
Since when is "being a dick" an argument? That sounds like woman-speak to me. If you take issue with something Putt did or said, state your case publicly and give others the chance to debunk to; how someone with a history of rational argument and systematic deconstruction can default to irrational behaviour like this is mind-boggling. Is it some sense of duty to fulfil the responsibilty to "protect" GA with which you've been trusted that is driving you? You can still do so rationally!
Engage in debate or discredit yourself and your cause.
Glory_Beckons ago
Putt's reversal effectively declared that it's okay to engage in vote manipulation and brigading, at least until some sort of "community discussion is had".
Worse, lumping in the dox bans with the rest also declared open season on doxing, stalking, intimidating and blackmailing users. And this in a rather final way, with no indication of clarified rules coming. This sets precedent and, let's face it, a reversal of a reversal isn't going to happen. A first reversal can be sold as a noble act of introspection. There is no way to save face or avoid looking weak and indecisive with a second one.
I'm really not sure there is a rational response to that.
You call for rationality from one side, but not the other. That's simply caving to the irrational aggressors and shaming their targets into submission by demanding they act like rational victims, and just bend over and take it. Where have we seen this before, and where has it led?
Since when is "SaneGoat behavior" an argument? That sounds like cuck-speak to me.
You (and Putt) need to take a step back and take a good hard look at what side you're taking here and just who you are defending.
If the doxxers did nothing worth punishment by running @srayzie off the site, by using her pictures to humiliate and intimidate her, then how can you say @Crensch is doing anything wrong by banning people from a non-global subverse he now owns? Surely, running someone off the site, with what amounts to blackmail, is worse than excluding someone from a subverse you own.
And what exactly is to be done about @Crensch, in your opinion, if he should continue his behavior?
Should he be punished, with a ban or a de-mod, while the doxxers walk away with nothing but reasons to gloat about it?
Is that your position here? Is that what we call justice, in Wild Wild Voat?
GoodGodKirk ago
This is exactly how I'm feeling at the moment. It's like it's ok to be an SJW and force your opinions on others and if you're banned, cry out as you strike others, eh?
Glory_Beckons ago
Exactly.
And look at all the downvotes without comments to go with them. So much for being rational and engaging in debate. But then, that's never expected from the other side. They can brigade and bury and spam and harass and intimidate and drive people away. That's OK. That's not censorship.
But the moment someone tries to defend themselves against it, not by going to their home and attacking them, but by setting up and enforcing boundaries and only retaliating against attacks, suddenly it's all OY VEY GEWALT. Suddenly that's censorship. Suddenly they are the victims. And suddenly the "good people" show up to defend the poor "victims".
Sad to see Voat fall for the same old infiltration and subversion tactics. For shame.
Rotteuxx ago
We could say the same thing about GA goons brigading users in Putts announcement yesterday.
Nice projecting.
CantDentTheBrent ago
They have an army of boomers.