Current Events > Apparently, its against the TOS to suggest groups in this country favor policies

(+) Yeah! (+)

based on their voting record. Cant suggest certain groups favor certain policies or support certain politicians using voting records and polling data alone without being warned.

This, on a site where it's ok to "discuss" why its ok to categorically reject all people of certain groups from ones dating pool

nice
---

When you paint entire swathes of the voting population as racist, it is indeed against the TOS.
---

StucklnMyPants posted...

When you paint entire swathes of the voting population as racist, it is indeed against the TOS.

I've literally never used the term racist to describe people's voting habits. Saying certain groups prefer Donald Trump as president, who can reasonably be argued is a racist, isnt calling people who support him racist.
---

try to contest it and see what happens.
---

It's also against the TOS to call alt right people alt right.
---

Ricemills posted...

try to contest it and see what happens.

I'm done contesting mods to this staff. I've tried to explain the potential pitfalls of that before, but CEman, some of the same ones who find it ok to discriminate based on race in the workplace or argue that black people who are focused on social justice reform are perpetuating a "victim narrative", cried racist to daddy error and friends when I spoke on it
---

Welcome to the jungle, baby
---

Uhh you cant make a generalization on a group of people. I got modded.for saying trump supporters were nationalists.
---

Veggeta X posted...

Uhh you cant make a generalization on a group of people. I got modded.for saying trump supporters were nationalists.

I didnt generalize, I used voting and polling data to reach reasonable conclusions regarding anti abortion advocates, who supports trump and why.

both topics were met with warns
---

Like, would it have been a "generalization" to say black people supported Obama?

CE had topics for YEARS debating how black people voted for him because they loved government handouts, despite no evidence suggesting this. Remember the "obamaPhone" topics?

but using poll data to suggest why certain people support trump is a bridge too far. Its wild.
---

Stop whining and follow the rules. If you don't like it build your own website.
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

I used voting and polling data to reach reasonable conclusions regarding anti abortion advocates, who supports trump and why.

Regardless if you were being factual, honest or even have evidence to back you up, saying anything insensitive towards a group of people is still against the ToS.

For example:

Saying "Based on criminal statistics, it is proven that this color of race or these kind of people causes the most issues with the law" is against the ToS. Why? Because it's offensive and is just there to push nerves further than it should be.
---

Not surprising when they do not ban self-admitted Nazis.
---

Veggeta X posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

I used voting and polling data to reach reasonable conclusions regarding anti abortion advocates, who supports trump and why.

Regardless if you were being factual, honest or even have evidence to back you up, saying anything insensitive towards a group of people is still against the ToS.

For example:

Saying "Based on criminal statistics, it is proven that this color of race or these kind of people causes the most issues with the law" is against the ToS. Why? Because it's offensive and is just there to push nerves further than it should be.

except, people on CE HAVE used FBI crime statistics regarding black people in topics regarding police misconduct.
---

Highwind07 posted...

This is vaguely familiar to the "statistics are racist" complaints.

the biggest difference between "black people committ crimes a lot. I believe its because of lack of respect for education and single mothers" and " X people support Donald Trump, heres why" is, in the latter example, voters TOLD US. The polling data is there for anyone to see
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

except, people on CE HAVE used FBI crime statistics regarding black people in topics regarding police misconduct.

And it would be against the ToS. People have an agenda when they try to use statistics to back up what they say in these cases. They think they're slick in using it to say whatever discriminative thing they want. Like I said, being factual or truthful does not negate you from being offensive. I've made countless topics about this already.
---

Veggeta X posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

except, people on CE HAVE used FBI crime statistics regarding black people in topics regarding police misconduct.

And it would be against the ToS. People have an agenda when they try to use statistics to back up what they say in these cases. They think they're slick in using it to say whatever discriminative thing they want. Like I said, being factual or truthful does not negate you from being offensive. I've made countless topics about this already.

again, if its offensive to say "based on voting and polling records, Group X of people tend to support policy Y or politician Z", then CE should just ban political topics altogether
---

If the agenda is to call certain groups of people for the sake of stirring up trouble then yes it would be modded. If you were honest to god just relaying this copied information from a credible source with no agenda, no menace that doesn't come off offensive then it shouldn't be modded. I guess your post history would have to accounted for it and also the mod who modded you would be in question as well.
---

"Pornstars shouldnt have to work with certain ethnicities if they dont want to": hundreds of posts, mods let it rock

"Why do certain groups support trump? the answers may lie in the polling data" : warned. I'd give the reason, but I'm sure it'd be used as a justification for another suspension

Like...the shit makes no sense
---

Veggeta X posted...

If the agenda is to call certain groups of people for the sake of stirring up trouble then yes it would be modded. If you were honest to god just relaying this copied information from a credible source with no agenda, no menace that doesn't come off offensive then it shouldn't be modded. I guess your post history would have to accounted for it and also the mod who modded you would be in question as well.

"White women tend to vote for anti abortion policies"

*posts article literally voting citing records*

*is promptly suspended*

"Here are the reasons voters voluntarily gave for supporting Trump

*posts article citing poll data, is promptly suspended*
---

Really depends. Having a preference should not be against the ToS, however the reason behind the preference is what matters. Like I said, there's always an agenda with what people post and mods can easily see through it a lot of times.
---

I'm sure your post was made in good faith. Hopefully you'll get your karma back.
---

Really wish a mod would come in here to clear things up.
---

that's a melty

It should be against the ToS to make a moderation complaint topic without including the full text of the moderated post.
---

Veggeta X posted...

Really wish a mod would come in here to clear things up.

the only one of any real consequence made their feelings clear when I was still in that discord. Is what it is.
---

DevsBro posted...

It should be against the ToS to make a moderation complaint topic without including the full text of the moderated post.

heh I see you bro
---

Elected Republicans p much vote anti lgbt, anti minority, anti woman, and anti poor across the board. This is a matter of record. Mod me, mods.
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

if its offensive to say "based on voting and polling records, Group X of people tend to support policy Y or politician Z", then CE should just ban political topics altogether

this
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

again, if its offensive to say "based on voting and polling records, Group X of people tend to support policy Y or politician Z", then CE should just ban political topics altogether

You know what, CE should just ban political topics altogether.
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

I've literally never used the term racist

Must've been figurative then.
---

untrustful posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

I've literally never used the term racist

Must've been figurative then.

if figurative racism were suspension worthy, admiral would have been banned ages ago lmao
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

who can reasonably be argued is a racist,

lol
---

Facts tend to be forbidden...

WingStopMaster posted...

Facts tend to be forbidden...

It's like no one read my posts.
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

StucklnMyPants posted...

When you paint entire swathes of the voting population as racist, it is indeed against the TOS.

I've literally never used the term racist to describe people's voting habits. Saying certain groups prefer Donald Trump as president, who can reasonably be argued is a racist, isnt calling people who support him racist.

I see where youre going here and I understand... but you shouldve known better.

You know the mods dont have the reading comprehension to read your post and understand you werent calling every trump voter a racist.
---

EdgeMaster posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

StucklnMyPants posted...

When you paint entire swathes of the voting population as racist, it is indeed against the TOS.

I've literally never used the term racist to describe people's voting habits. Saying certain groups prefer Donald Trump as president, who can reasonably be argued is a racist, isnt calling people who support him racist.

I see where youre going here and I understand... but you shouldve known better.

You know the mods dont have the reading comprehension to read your post and understand you werent calling every trump voter a racist.

when they double down when you dispute the moderations, it comes off as deliberate misinterpretation
---

My post was modded. The mod cried about how my "records" are wrong and I was generalizing a group of people, even though I wasn't. Mods are allowed to mod factual posts that conflict with the reality they set up in their heads.

That's interesting.
---

Pukelid posted...

My post was modded. The mod cried about how my "records" are wrong and I was generalizing a group of people, even though I wasn't. Mods are allowed to mod factual posts that conflict with the reality they set up in their heads.

That's interesting.

Actually you made a very broad generalization on a group of people with no real records other than saying "It's based on matter of a record". It's not factual at all. Come on dude, you know what you did wrong. I got modded once for saying Trump supporters were "all pretty much xenophobic".
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

EdgeMaster posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

StucklnMyPants posted...

When you paint entire swathes of the voting population as racist, it is indeed against the TOS.

I've literally never used the term racist to describe people's voting habits. Saying certain groups prefer Donald Trump as president, who can reasonably be argued is a racist, isnt calling people who support him racist.

I see where youre going here and I understand... but you shouldve known better.

You know the mods dont have the reading comprehension to read your post and understand you werent calling every trump voter a racist.

when they double down when you dispute the moderations, it comes off as deliberate misinterpretation

Lol yeah. It gets even better in an actual argument, like one with actual sources and statistics. Disprove them and get ready for a meltdown. Gun and mass shooting stats get their panties especially knotted.

It just pretty much ends with a lot of ass damage on their end and then being a sore loser with a yeah whatever you still broke the tos though kind of message.
---

Fair, next
---

In all fairness mods are just trying to keep this place from being less of a cesspool than it is.

Personally I hate the censorship and think that's why we have an "ignore" feature", ultimately the site is "technically" accessible to what is it 13 years old? So with that in mind they kind of have to try to shut down sewer topics.

There really isn't a great solution because the TOS is so "loose" it becomes subjective almost immediately.

In the end I would vouch for less censoring and let the users filter through the garbage, but that likely isn't going to happen.
---

HypnoCoosh posted...

In all fairness mods are just trying to keep this place from being less of a cesspool than it is.

No they dont lol. Look at how many posts go unmodded that support terrorism.
---

EdgeMaster posted...

HypnoCoosh posted...

In all fairness mods are just trying to keep this place from being less of a cesspool than it is.

No they dont lol. Look at how many posts go unmodded that support terrorism.

I get it. I really do.

I think at any given time we all see crap we now "feel" should be moderated. That's kind of the problem. We've all come to the point we carefully construct our words in hopes to get around the TOS and when we see shit we feel is obviously against the TOS it goes untouched when other less obvious stuff is deleted and the user warned.

The main problem is we are all brainwashed into attacking each others right to free speech, instead of just being like I disagree and move on. Or I disagree and here is why, etc.

It's a sad state of affairs we take our 1st amendment rights for granted and can't even see how they are being eroded.
---

@FrisbeeDude looks what the mods just let happen here. Every topic
---

Less than a week ago you made the following topic:

"Why is suggesting a cornerstone of trump support was based on anti immigration"

The topic was about how you got moded.

Are you complaining again about the same moderation, was there ever a moderation at all, or you just really bad at stating your opinion without accusing people of things?
---

HypnoCoosh posted...

In all fairness mods are just trying to keep this place from being less of a cesspool than it is.

I don't think that's the case anymore. All of the fair and impartial mods like Admiral have stepped down.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Less than a week ago you made the following topic:

"Why is suggesting a cornerstone of trump support was based on anti immigration"

The topic was about how you got moded.

Are you complaining again about the same moderation, was there ever a moderation at all, or you just really bad at stating your opinion without accusing people of things?

bro, that post was based on an article citing poll data where voters themselves gave that opinion. I didnt reach that conclusion myself
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Less than a week ago you made the following topic:

"Why is suggesting a cornerstone of trump support was based on anti immigration"

The topic was about how you got moded.

Are you complaining again about the same moderation, was there ever a moderation at all, or you just really bad at stating your opinion without accusing people of things?

bro, that post was based on an article citing poll data where voters themselves gave that opinion. I didnt reach that conclusion myself

stfu and stop generalizing
---