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?
Who is the rational "side"? Because constantly making false accusations against people who have been here longer than the Q movement were repeatedly targeted and harassed. There are no "good actors" in the conflict that just took place. It was shit slinging from both sides, except one side just seemed to be having fun with it. That is why that side "won" and was always going to win.
An out of control mod should just face the consequences of making their subverse irrelevant. Srayzie doxxed herself repeatedly and is still easy to find on the Internet across a wide variety of platforms where she posted her pictures. I have faced all of this and more and nobody bothers me, anymore, because of how I deal with it. Did you see me putting stickies up everywhere, brigading people, acting outraged for months at a time? No. Because that is pointless, ineffective, counter productive and ultimately just makes a long list of enemies.
Anyone who has lived in Wild West situations knows that an armed society is a polite society and you don't just go running around giving people reasons to shoot you. If you put yourself in a weak position by doxxing yourself against a large group of people you systematically harassed for a year or more, then why act surprised when they use their advantage of anonymity? Of course that is what was going to happen.
You ever see a good old fashioned 4chan raid back in the "good ol' days"? It always surprised me that, as people were experiencing life ruin and their families were being sent naked pictures and whatnot that people wouldn't delete their accounts immediately. They were emotionally attached to the technological weapon that was hurting them. They would rather let their lives be ruined than exercise good sense. Justice is not going to protect people from their own stupid decisions.
How are you going to protect someone from doxxing when they are the ones doing the doxxing on themselves?
If Crensch bans people, then let him. If kevdude has an opinion on it, then let him share it. Do I agree with Crensch? No. He is insulting and poor with critical thought and easily gets triggered and falsely accuses people of being shills like everyday for years. I wouldn't have expected anything else from him. Would it protect the subverse if he was banned? Probably. But, the Q movement has other problems that they don't even seem to know about, yet.
The world is full of assholes. The first step in dealing with them is by controlling your own response, then employing a reasonable solution. But, you know what they say... if you run into an asshole, they're probably just an asshole, but if you run into assholes all day, then you're probably the asshole.
At this stage, Crensch is banning people who don't adhere to the Q narrative and because they are vocal about it and ridicule it, they have faced bans. That is certainly not a "free speech" approach, but, then again, it was never a "free speech" approach at /v/Pizzagate, either. If the goal of "protecting voat" is to ban those who ban free speech, then Crensch needs a ban. Personally, I don't know how it's defined and I don't have feelings one way or the other. A bad subverse will die on its own.
Oh, yes, poor SBBH kids. They just want a place to do their thing and talk about things that they find interesting, and people keep coming to their subverses to sling shit and target and harass them. But they're so noble about it, they would never ban anyone.
Oh wait. They do ban people, all the time. But that's okay, "they're just having fun". And they're the ones who invade other subverses to harass and agitate and disrupt. But that's okay, "they're just having fun". And when they dox and threaten and blackmail and go after people's children, that's fine too. "They're just having fun".
Srayzie doxxed herself repeatedly and is still easy to find on the Internet across a wide variety of platforms where she posted her pictures
"It was easy to abuse her. That makes it okay. They're just having fun, anyway."
No further comment necessary.
you don't just go running around giving people reasons to shoot you
Funny how you don't apply that logic to banning them, after they've spent years repeatedly baiting people into banning them, so they can then cry foul when they get what they asked for. But, that's right, "they're having fun". So they should be immune to all consequences for their actions, while everyone they target is held to account for reacting and trying to defend themselves on their own turf.
You ever see a good old fashioned 4chan raid back in the "good ol' days"?
It's funny you would bring that up, of all things. /b/tards are a bunch of leftist, basement-dwelling degenerates. And they routinely picked a victim that couldn't fight back, including children, and set upon them like a pack of hyenas, doxing and blackmailing them, to revel in the pain and misery they caused, because it briefly made them feel powerful and forget how pathetic their own existence was. What a fitting comparison.
This is your benchmark for "the good ol' days"? This is the ideal you aspire to? No wonder you take their side. Scum sticks together, after all.
if you run into an asshole, they're probably just an asshole, but if you run into assholes all day, then you're probably the asshole.
Kind of like how the SBBH bloc keeps running into all the drama on voat, which means they're the center of all the dr-- wait, no, "they're just having fun"!
If the goal of "protecting voat" is to ban those who ban free speech, then Crensch needs a ban.
Driving someone off the site with threats and blackmail because you don't like what they talk about in their own subverse: Perfectly fine.
Banning agitators who spam your subverses to disrupt and derail your discussions with manufactured drama: Evil censorship! Let's ban him globally!
I have little or nothing to do with SBBH. If they mentioned me, I've never noticed. In fact, I don't usually notice when people mention me.
This isn't the "she got raped because she was wearinga short skirt" scenario. @srayzie harassed people constantly for a year or more and she finally found someone who was willing to put the time and energy into harassing her back.
She wasn't wearing a short skirt... she was walking into a New Orleans ghetto and picking fights. If you pick fights with enough people, someone is going to kick your ass.
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?
thewebofslime ago
Who is the rational "side"? Because constantly making false accusations against people who have been here longer than the Q movement were repeatedly targeted and harassed. There are no "good actors" in the conflict that just took place. It was shit slinging from both sides, except one side just seemed to be having fun with it. That is why that side "won" and was always going to win.
An out of control mod should just face the consequences of making their subverse irrelevant. Srayzie doxxed herself repeatedly and is still easy to find on the Internet across a wide variety of platforms where she posted her pictures. I have faced all of this and more and nobody bothers me, anymore, because of how I deal with it. Did you see me putting stickies up everywhere, brigading people, acting outraged for months at a time? No. Because that is pointless, ineffective, counter productive and ultimately just makes a long list of enemies.
Anyone who has lived in Wild West situations knows that an armed society is a polite society and you don't just go running around giving people reasons to shoot you. If you put yourself in a weak position by doxxing yourself against a large group of people you systematically harassed for a year or more, then why act surprised when they use their advantage of anonymity? Of course that is what was going to happen.
You ever see a good old fashioned 4chan raid back in the "good ol' days"? It always surprised me that, as people were experiencing life ruin and their families were being sent naked pictures and whatnot that people wouldn't delete their accounts immediately. They were emotionally attached to the technological weapon that was hurting them. They would rather let their lives be ruined than exercise good sense. Justice is not going to protect people from their own stupid decisions.
How are you going to protect someone from doxxing when they are the ones doing the doxxing on themselves?
If Crensch bans people, then let him. If kevdude has an opinion on it, then let him share it. Do I agree with Crensch? No. He is insulting and poor with critical thought and easily gets triggered and falsely accuses people of being shills like everyday for years. I wouldn't have expected anything else from him. Would it protect the subverse if he was banned? Probably. But, the Q movement has other problems that they don't even seem to know about, yet.
The world is full of assholes. The first step in dealing with them is by controlling your own response, then employing a reasonable solution. But, you know what they say... if you run into an asshole, they're probably just an asshole, but if you run into assholes all day, then you're probably the asshole.
At this stage, Crensch is banning people who don't adhere to the Q narrative and because they are vocal about it and ridicule it, they have faced bans. That is certainly not a "free speech" approach, but, then again, it was never a "free speech" approach at /v/Pizzagate, either. If the goal of "protecting voat" is to ban those who ban free speech, then Crensch needs a ban. Personally, I don't know how it's defined and I don't have feelings one way or the other. A bad subverse will die on its own.
Glory_Beckons ago
Oh, yes, poor SBBH kids. They just want a place to do their thing and talk about things that they find interesting, and people keep coming to their subverses to sling shit and target and harass them. But they're so noble about it, they would never ban anyone.
Oh wait. They do ban people, all the time. But that's okay, "they're just having fun". And they're the ones who invade other subverses to harass and agitate and disrupt. But that's okay, "they're just having fun". And when they dox and threaten and blackmail and go after people's children, that's fine too. "They're just having fun".
"It was easy to abuse her. That makes it okay. They're just having fun, anyway."
No further comment necessary.
Funny how you don't apply that logic to banning them, after they've spent years repeatedly baiting people into banning them, so they can then cry foul when they get what they asked for. But, that's right, "they're having fun". So they should be immune to all consequences for their actions, while everyone they target is held to account for reacting and trying to defend themselves on their own turf.
It's funny you would bring that up, of all things. /b/tards are a bunch of leftist, basement-dwelling degenerates. And they routinely picked a victim that couldn't fight back, including children, and set upon them like a pack of hyenas, doxing and blackmailing them, to revel in the pain and misery they caused, because it briefly made them feel powerful and forget how pathetic their own existence was. What a fitting comparison.
This is your benchmark for "the good ol' days"? This is the ideal you aspire to? No wonder you take their side. Scum sticks together, after all.
Kind of like how the SBBH bloc keeps running into all the drama on voat, which means they're the center of all the dr-- wait, no, "they're just having fun"!
Driving someone off the site with threats and blackmail because you don't like what they talk about in their own subverse: Perfectly fine.
Banning agitators who spam your subverses to disrupt and derail your discussions with manufactured drama: Evil censorship! Let's ban him globally!
So rational!
thewebofslime ago
I have little or nothing to do with SBBH. If they mentioned me, I've never noticed. In fact, I don't usually notice when people mention me.
This isn't the "she got raped because she was wearinga short skirt" scenario. @srayzie harassed people constantly for a year or more and she finally found someone who was willing to put the time and energy into harassing her back.
She wasn't wearing a short skirt... she was walking into a New Orleans ghetto and picking fights. If you pick fights with enough people, someone is going to kick your ass.