Am I the only one here who thinks this SJW mod thing is blown out of proportion? (whatever)

submitted ago by FrozenFire74

The dude runs a private sub and just wants the sub to talk about wierd shit. Is it really a problem when someone goes off topic from that? I saw the orriginal comment and it was in context, so I would have to say the Mod made a bad call, but this isn't another case of the v/Canada (if I'm remembering my sub scandals right).

I'm not for censorship, and I don't think this mod handled it right, but the backlash seems disproportionate and possibly artificial here.

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

sguevar ago

After reading the different proofs of he censoring I decided to make this post:

https://voat.co/v/theunexplained/2918529 - The post is following all of his guidelines.

His reply though shows the following: https://archive.is/NUljz - archived for deletion purposes but here is the direct quote to his statement:

Now as far as your post. This is not the type of content that I would normally allow because it doesn't relate to the content for this sub. You have some very good questions but this isn't the place to discuss politics, religion or philosophy. Although I do enjoy discussing those topics. Moving forward, I will allow this post to stay up for a while but at some point I will delete it because like I said it's not related to the content of this sub.

If you read the post you will see that the questions to rhetorical for me are not for many and are indeed unexplained subjects that fall into the topic of the subverse he has. Yet he claims they are not for they are not the type of content HE would allow.

Though I quoted his rules on my answer I quote again:

Racism and hateful comments: Racist or hateful comments have no place on this sub. This includes the use of the "N" word. If you aren't sure what I mean by the "N" word, then it's safe to say it would be best to not post a comment at all. The owner and moderators of this sub have the right to break this rule when dealing with hateful individuals.

This is a direct violation of freedom of speech as by the SCOTUS hate speech is free speech. If he censors the comments or submissions because he doesn't like what they were about he is censoring free speech. Voat is doesn't stand for that as you yourself claimed.

And to add to the subject the fact that he self proclaims he can break the rules to be impolite and insult or offend the people he doesn't like because he finds them hateful shows the hypocrisy under which he operates.

He deserves to be thought that here on Voat you don't get to attack freedom of speech. I may not agree with lots of people saying what they say, but I will defend their right to say it. The only judge, in my view as a Christian, will be God. But I will not trump the right of others to say what they want.

He is using excessive and authoritarian moderation which is highly frowned upon.