Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

367

This is the end of discourse on Poal.

I could let it slide on individual subs, but this is too far; ideas gone unmolested is the promotion of cancer... I suppose that I will have to find a new home.

EDIT: I propose the following solution.

Instead of outright blocking individual users, their replies and conversations are INSTEAD automatically collapsed so that their speech is not infringed upon by allowing the choice to see it, and that those blocking them don't have to see it if they choose not to.

See for petition to change it.

This is the end of discourse on Poal. I could let it slide on individual subs, but this is too far; ideas gone unmolested is the promotion of cancer... I suppose that I will have to find a new home. EDIT: I propose the following solution. >Instead of outright blocking individual users, their replies and conversations are INSTEAD automatically collapsed so that their speech is not infringed upon by allowing the *choice* to see it, and that those blocking them don't have to see it if they *choose* not to. See [HERE](https://poal.co/s/IdeasForPoal/291456) for petition to change it.

(post is archived)

[–] • 5 pts

Maybe you should ask yourself why so many users have blocked you, instead of blaming it on someone else.

[–] • 4 pts (edited )

Maybe you should let people decide for themselves what they choose to read in response to posts.

If you don't like a user, block the user and ignore them. Why block thay user on my behalf?

And you'll note. 2 faggots have ever blocked me. The usual faggots that block all criticisms of their idiotic horseshit.

[–] • 1 pt

If you don't like a user, block the user and ignore them. Why block thay user on my behalf?

Wait what?

[–] • 4 pts

If I cannot post a reply to your post, other people are not able to read the reply that I would have posted. By blocking my ability to reply to your post, you are deciding for everyone else that they shouldn't be allowed to read what I have to say about whatever you post.

You can block me without blocking my ability to post for everyone else to see. If you don't want to be annoyed by what I have to say, fine. But why decide that for everyone else?

[–] • 0 pt

And you'll note. 2 faggots have ever blocked me.

How did you come to that conclusion?

[–] • 1 pt

I got the notifications about being blocked from their subs.

[–] • 3 pts (edited )

Ignorance only manifests by a lack of contrary ideas. If a user has that ability to block those ideas, then I can indeed blame it on them.

Survival of the fittest is the basis of evolution which created dominant species by greater makeup, thus survival of ideas is the very same: this is the law of nature. Without the ability to contest ideas, detrimental thought is allowed to become pervasive. Multiply this precedent over time, and Poal becomes a place where only ignorance reigns (yet another reddit).

Anyone paying attention to my words knows that they are the truth and only the truth. If you disagree with them, it is not a reflection of myself.

"They are only the truth as you see fit!"

Then they can openly disagree and provide a greater truth; I am always open to listen and to change my own mind. Nobody attacks my truths with as much vigor as I do to myself. The one thing that I refuse to become in this world is that which both believed a lie and allowed it to persist; who wants to be wrong?

The pursuit of the truth is a lifetime of question. The pursuit of the lie is not to question at all or to allow question.

"If your ideas cannot survive scrutiny, then they are worthless"

[–] • 2 pts

You want people to think like you. That's not gonna happen.

[–] • 3 pts

I don't care if they do, but they deserve to hear it, like I deserve to hear them too.

[–] • 4 pts

Yup. Posters deciding for every other reader on Poal what they can and can't read in response to their stupid and idiotic horseshit. Its pure faggotry.

[–] • 1 pt

This is the end of discourse on Poal.

Hon, don't you think you're being dramatic? People have always been able to block others and as the site grows you would expect there to be an absolute increase in the number of blockings, but that on its own doesn't signal a change in the beliefs of the average user.

[–] • 1 pt

I have not blocked you. Actually, I think you're in my top 10 favorite posters on here.

Also, I don't use the on-site block function at all anymore and instead use uBlock filters to completely hide submissions and/or comments and/or messages/notifications of comments for users. Going this route in blocking I am able to completely hide just from my own screen people that I personally find too irritating or who regularly post things that are of no interest or intellectual value to me and are just a waste of my time without infringing on anyone else's ability to post and comment whatever the hell they want.

I'm up to 78 now (not including deleted comments which I have set to also be completely hidden).

[–] • 1 pt

Blocked.

[–] • 0 pt

Checked and kekked, blocked and cocked.

[–] • 1 pt

Good to know the receiver of the block gets a notification.

Is it Crench or Anticlutch that doesn't love you?

[–] • 0 pt

You get the notification when you post.

Nobody likes the faggot known as Crensch, but Anticlutch and myself are bros.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

So what are your ideas you have to spam every day?

[–] • 0 pt

This is the end of discourse on Poal.

Uh oh. Don’t let your boss hear you say that. And don’t let yourself know that I wholeheartedly agree with you.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Why are you against blocking trolls and spammers?

Do you know a better way to stop them?

[–] • 1 pt

Why are you against blocking trolls and spammers?

I’m against trolls and spammers blocking REAL users, which now includes blocking anyone who can prove them wrong AND preventing them from being downvoted so their lies aren’t seen. That’s literally how this site works now. Anyone who downvotes a proven paid shill is punished. And they can stop you from proving them wrong.

Do you know a better way to stop them?

Banning them from posting on the website entirely.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

I don't always agree with Tallest, but I would never stop him from replying.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Do you have somebody who blocked you? I am really interested.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Why would you want to talk with someone who can't stand you?

[–] • 3 pts

You're not. They are responding to your posts. That's not talking to them. If you don't want to hear what someone specific has to say in response to your post, block that user. But why should you get to decide what everyone else gets to read in response to your post? Why should you get to decide whose allowed to talk to whom about shit you post?

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

The idea is to block trolls and spammers from annoying you. If you are normal and somebody blocks you, it's their problem, not yours.

[–] • 2 pts

By blocking a person from replying your posts, you aren't preventing a user from annoying you. You're preventing that user from annoying everyone else. However, the unintended consequence of that action is that grifters who are using this platform to promote a grift have a safe space to promote that grift by blocking those who call them out on that grift.

Crensh, for example, blocked me because I suggested that this Q bullshit was nothing but a grift, used to sell Q shit, and questioned his motives by referencing the years of claims, made by Q, that never materialized or were never shown to be true.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

Because those people attack my truth the most.

How do you intend to know if what you believe is true if you live in an echo chamber; how do you think that Twitter got the way that it did?

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

I think you can make your own thread with a link to the post blocked to you and prove them wrong.

[–] • 1 pt

Why should I have to? Why should anyone have the ability to prevent their ideas from going directly unchallenged?

Your argument is contrary to the very reason that the "Fuck You!" option exists on polls, yet it is vigorously defended.

[–] • 0 pt

I find it funnier if the person is not informed they’re blocked, so they can continue screaming at the person ignoring their tantrum

[–] • 1 pt

How does blocking them solve the tantrum? It's a reflection of who you are that you chose to block someone rather than reason with them.

[–] • 0 pt

By choosing not to gratify their tantrum. 99.99999% of arguments on the Internet never make it past two people shouting their viewpoints at each other. Discussion is almost never had; they simply rephrase the same shit over and over.

I refuse to have my time wasted by someone who will never admit they’re fucking retarded.

[–] • 1 pt

Then you need better arguments. Blocking someone is a concession that you were unable to make your point. You can't shout on the internet; those are just the same words in caps. Only a women could make an emotional claim about the state of letters.

Once you've dismantled a shill, and their arguments begin repeating, then call it out and claim victory. Then it's time to leave.

Load more (1 reply)