Update to site wide rules

Posted by smallpond in AskRamble

Recent deletions of posts by yorma aren't justified according to site rules. See the moderation log:

https://ramble.pw/moderation_log

Firstly you should probably explicitly list 'spam' as something not allowed in the site rules list, and try to explain what 'spam' is, if your idea of what spam is is broader than usual.

https://ramble.pw/wiki/rules

Secondly, I don't think yorma's posts can reasonably be considered spam. As far as I can tell they were legitimate news articles that were cherry-picked according to the user's own interest. (In this case guided by their dislike of Vietnamese people.) Of course I don't share yorma's opinions, but think they should be able to post here nonetheless.

This site talked about supporting free speech. If it no longer does, you should update site information to say so.

2

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Rambler wrote (edited )

The dude was only posting articles about Vietnamese stealing, some of the articles were years old and not even recent.

No apologies needed from anyone who moderates RAMBLE.

The rules of /f/news state clearly in the sidebar:

Please make sure all news is current any from actual news articles unless it's a breaking news event, in which case linking to a Tweet ( for example ) would be appropriate.

Headlines may be modified by a moderator or admin to clarify region of news by adding a tag. (Ex: [USA] or [Russia])

Some Vietnamese dude stealing chickens in 2019 or something is hardly newsworthy.

3

smallpond OP wrote (edited )

Yeah, I didn't actually read those articles.

If it's a 'news' specific rule then the removal is consistent. Of course the moderator should have written 'old article' for a reason, not 'spam'. The article(s) that were recent shouldn't have been removed. This one is recent:

https://inf.news/en/world/4a894d32a5273367f78eb683b420c22d.html

Edit: Actually, it seems to say it's recent ^ but it's not. Perhaps it's a retarded date format.

2

spektor wrote

Sighs. I do get tired of people trying to define prejudiced speech as free speech. It winds up ruining free speech for everybody else because somebody wants to scream about "Spics" or "Gooks" or something else juvenile.

0

smallpond OP wrote

Free speech isn't free speech unless it includes people saying things you don't like. We are all prejudiced in some way: to think otherwise is delusional.

2

spektor wrote

Thinking your definition is the only one is delusional, but that's neither here nor there. It's not just something "I don't like". It's picking a class of people for usually imagined reasons, and making up stereotypes so you feel better than them. That's called being a fuckhead and when people are fuckheads and start doing this, usually they start doing things to that class of people they shouldn't be doing which involves law enforcement and lawsuits which ultimately create police states because people aren't really relating to free speech in the sense that it is meant as a concept and pretty soon, "Free speech" is all weirdly interpreted because of a group of fuckheads who didn't think there was consequence to being prejudiced bitches. The whole idea of "protected classes" has come about due to idiots thinking free speech means you can go out in your finest white sheets and burn crosses on lawns. So, I don't like that a bunch of idiots who can't figure out cause and effect start to steer legislation that affects my ability to speak in general since legislators usually institute "Thought police". Go bond over something else other than your mutual hatred of a specific group of people--or if you are going to do that, at least do it in private places where you aren't going to suddenly involve law enforcement agencies who decide what the laws should be due to your being an idiot. If you start posting it in public places which are governed most often by laws of one kind or another, you shouldn't be terribly surprised when your little hate groups receive...well hate.

1

smallpond OP wrote (edited )

Verbose delusion is still delusion buddy. Just another 'free speech for me but not for thee' hypocrite. Supporting free speech means supporting people's right to say stuff you disagree with - you deserve the thought police.

Edit:

usually they start doing things to that class of people they shouldn't be doing

You don't believe in free speech at all. People should be free to speak, not to conduct illegal acts, and speech should not be restricted because of some vague possibility that it will lead to illegal acts. That's the nonsense thought-police argument.

2

spektor wrote

Verbose delusion is still delusion buddy. Just another 'free speech for me but not for thee' hypocrite. Supporting free speech means supporting people's right to say stuff you disagree with - you deserve the thought police.

Gee golly. You totally supported your argument with all those facts. I feel like we are on an equal footing and you are a "smart person" who has the authority to call me names because you are so, so smart! Good job, you!

You don't believe in free speech at all. People should be free to speak, not to conduct illegal acts, and speech should not be restricted because of some vague possibility that it will lead to illegal acts. That's the nonsense thought-police argument.

K. Since I don't believe in free speech, and I do believe you should shut the fuck up, I think you should shut the fuck up because you are dumb. New rule: only smart people get to have free speech. (i.e. not you) (Just for reference, this is wholly satire based on your bad reasoning)

1

smallpond OP wrote

New rule: only smart people get to have free speech. (i.e. not you)

Well, that is your retarded argument in a nutshell. Which is the same argument as the censors and those fighting against free speech. I think you struck accidental lucidity.

1

spektor wrote

You nailed it. I'm retarded. Of course, you are trying to argue with a retard, so what does that make you? Not very clever for being so smart, apparently.

1

smallpond OP wrote

Even the smartest guy on earth (obviously not me) has to spend all day talking to the intellectually inferior. Morons may be morons, but they have collective power and are important nonetheless.

2

spektor wrote

Thanks for validating my "collective power". On the other hand, you aren't going to change a moron's mind so what you are saying is that you like wasting your time talking to morons who are going to do whatever it is they collectively do. You don't even get a share in the power in that scenario--you are just a total loss of life/time.

1

smallpond OP wrote

Those of blessed with excess sometimes engage in something called 'charity', you wouldn't understand.

1

Wahaha wrote

No, that's the entire free speech argument. You don't need to protect the right of someone to say what you like to year. You only need to protect the right of someones saying things you do not like to hear.

2

spektor wrote

No, that is someone's IDEA of the free speech argument. This isn't about what I "Like to hear". The classical argument is that you aren't, through free speech, allowed to yell out the word FIRE when there is no fire in a crowded theater. Such an action would cause probable death and panic. Therefore, the statement "your free speech doesn't go past your nose" is usually the metric because when you speak a thing, it enters into a larger arena than just your desire to say a given thing.

I'd argue racist statements are like yelling in that crowded theater when there is no fire. Just because you hate something or someone does not give you an automatic right to start raising an alarm about that someone or group of someones unless you have some kind of actual evidence. So, if I tell you you should be careful of the Chinese because of the Great Firewall and sleeper agents sympathetic to the communist party, that's different than if I say you should beware Chinese cause they gots yellow skins, and I hates me some yellow skins!

It isn't about what I want to hear, but it is about conveying information in a responsible way to a larger accountability than just saying whatever the hell comes into your mind. Most people censor themselves quite heavily, for instance, on a first date since they understand if they say things like "I want to be inside you" or "I want you inside me" most likely that isn't going to function in a way that moves to a second date and if it does, one has to wonder about the longevity of such a relationship since the sexual emphasis was so high and immediate...

0

Wahaha wrote

Racism isn't a hate of a skin color. That's the usual deflection. Racism is a reflection of facts like this: https://files.catbox.moe/i96yv9.png

0

spektor wrote

Nah. Those facts are a reflection of statistical measures of people who get murdered without any operational definitions defining what "murder" is. Skin color, on the other hand, is a measurable difference that people readily detect and foolishly base conclusions upon.

1

Wahaha wrote

Yeah, it's called pattern recognition.

0

spektor wrote

What I defined are the pieces that constitute an actual scientific study. What you are trying to make a case for is correlation between murder victims and color. You are confusing "fact" with "Correlation" which is a huge scientific no no. You posted facts. The "pattern" to the numbers could come from any number of factors which may or may not be race related.

1

Wahaha wrote

You have to be blind to not see the correlation with the race:

https://files.catbox.moe/lq2m2o.mp4

0

spektor wrote

Murders of a particular race can be correlated with many factors--perhaps say poverty or drug usage or even extreme wealth or lately "being a rich Russian billionaire." Why those factors exist might be spiritual, economic, self-caused, other-caused, or a whole slew of sociao-political reasons. The bottom line is, if you want to see it as race alone, that's how you are going to see it, but that isn't really science talking. More likely, it is some "liberal academic conditoning" talking, which often masquerades as science.

1

Wahaha wrote

It's just that even the richest black people commit more violent crime than the poorest of white folks.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=yvOKYZWjbOc

1

spektor wrote

Racial? Cultural? Environmental? All factors to that outcome.

1

Wahaha wrote

Dude, it's genetics. There is no such thing as magic earth. Shit people create shithole countries. Simple as that.

0

spektor wrote

That isn't science as such. That's an opinion that might explain why there are countries that don't seemingly do as well.

1

Wahaha wrote

Just talk to the people who spend years going to Africa to build infrastructure and schools to teach them and see what they have to say about this. They are mostly incapable of being schooled and they tend to destroy the stuff you build for them.

If a country is a shithole, it's because of the people living in that country. Africa is pretty much the jackpot as far as continents go. No harsh winters and there's plenty of everything. When white Europeans used to live there it was ancient Egypt and a prosperous civilization. The places with white Europeans are still prosperous civilizations.

There is no magic earth. It's all the people. Hundreds of years a go a German dude (Johann August Sutter) went to California and made a prosperous settlement inside of a desert by redirecting mountain water.

0