choosing what one doesn't want to hear is the flip side of saying whatever you want
maybe you don't like people jamming fingers in their ears but freedom to express oneself includes the freedom to personally exclude input from one's brain. mods aren't running around shadow banning people but i suppose you will argue this is a slippery slope?
Seems like a really simple solution is let humans decide to ignore stuff with out the ability to block them.
So I see a message from maronsaint. Guess what I ignore it I don't need to fucking have some big brother type thing protect me.
Why the fuck is an adult on a website so weak willed such a pussy such a gamma they can't see something then ignore it.
"Why the fuck is an adult on a website so weak willed such a pussy such a gamma they can't see something then ignore it."
i don't know but i also don't really care. in this world we are surrounded by mental and spiritual weakness. if i can tolerate constant pussification of the real world around me i honestly don't give a fuck about how much of a bitch someone does or does not want to be on the internet
True I can't really disagree with that point
choosing what one doesn't want to hear is the flip side of saying whatever you want
If only that was all it was. No, on Poal, when a user blocks you you're prevented from commenting on their post. It's not that they won't read it -- it's that no one can because you can't even make the post. Is this an absolutely retarded policy for a "free speech" site? Yes, yes it is.
It's intentional degeneracy by AOU.
okay, dickhead A blocks dickhead B
dickhead A then "makes a post" boo hoo poor dickhead B cannot reply to
dickhead B makes a post
problem solved
dickhead A then "makes a post" boo hoo poor dickhead B cannot reply to dickhead B makes a post problem solved
No, it's not "solved". It won't appear in the proper place and won't receive the visibility it should. It defeats the whole point of threading. Why can't you just admit allowing users to block other users from replying is a terrible idea, especially for a supposed "free speech" site? Even AOU knows this, which is why he "fixed" it by not having it apply to users level 30 and above.
It is a slippery slope and predicting that that would be his argument in no way invalidates it. But in your mind it does. Probably because you've blocked all the sane voices out of your life. Such is the fate of a fucking retarded faggot like yourself.
wow that is a lot of triggered
i just don't see why y'all want to control other people's actions. sure, if someone is upset by poal content maybe just don't visit the site but if some idiot wants to be but hurt and block out the world around them then go for it. it doesn't diminish the other in any way nor their view. i have not blocked anyone, why would i? it is a website. i don't really give a shit what you people want to say online.
the "slippery slope" is only invalid because allowing an individual to turn off voices and customize their user experience has nothing to do with people losing their voice online. if some fag doesn't want their fee fees hurt it really is not my problem
Saying "triggered" is the most retarded bullshit. You just cast that label on people to pretend like their opinions are invalid by lumping them in a category of those with "undesirable behavior." You've been trained to do this because your opinions are too weak to stand on their own.
You've done nothing but prove you have a complete lack of understanding of the issue.
You try to distill the complexity of the issue to "one individual" that blocks others. But you know it is much more than that. You ignore reality because you're a fucking faggot, pseudo-intellectual that believes acting smug is the same as being right.
(post is archived)