Council members Wednesday voted to finalize plans that would remove a protected bike lane along downtown Main Street and add 40 angled parking spaces after public criticism of a previous […]
“apparently I’m not allowed to make massive assumptions and literally compare you not liking cars using space meant for people with limited mobility to genocide”
It’s. Not deleted, the first comment to use the word genocide was the Courtney person that I accused. They are the one that initially used the term genocide. Here the text of the comment before the word genocide showed up.
Apparently the mods feel that you’re allowed to advocate for violence, but I’m not allowed to point out that advocating for violence is wrong.
Identifying abuse of the concept of genocide isn’t against the rules, abusing the concept of genocide (Regardless of if you use the exact word or not) is what’s against the rules. The removed comment seemed to be bending the meaning of the word genocide to incorrectly accuse the commenter of such, or doing something related. It’s OK to use the word genocide to identify and call out abuse of the concept. It’s not OK to abuse the concept.
I didn’t compare anything to genocide. The other user is the only person who has used that word. They are also the only person between the two of us who has advocated for violence. All I did was point out that destruction of innocent people‘s property is wrong no matter who the perpetrator is.
I’d not recommend you repeat whatever you wrote, but it looks pretty clear cut like you were twisting the concept of genocide to unfairly malign advocacy for the underserved and that’s why your comment got removed. Mod can probably clarify, but the mere word “genocide” isn’t bad or banned.
It’s not that hard to look up the mod log if you are curious. But if you honestly think that busting headlights is “advocacy for the underserved” then I am afraid that you are part of the problem that I was trying to point out.
Then why did call it genocide in your reply?
They are pantomiming the other user’s comment which got deleted for doing so. Gotta read carefully.
It’s. Not deleted, the first comment to use the word genocide was the Courtney person that I accused. They are the one that initially used the term genocide. Here the text of the comment before the word genocide showed up.
Identifying abuse of the concept of genocide isn’t against the rules, abusing the concept of genocide (Regardless of if you use the exact word or not) is what’s against the rules. The removed comment seemed to be bending the meaning of the word genocide to incorrectly accuse the commenter of such, or doing something related. It’s OK to use the word genocide to identify and call out abuse of the concept. It’s not OK to abuse the concept.
There is no deleted comment in this chain. What are you on about mate?
https://slrpnk.net/post/38278761/22489880
This thread spawns off the sibling comment to that one, talking about it’s removal. Like I said, gotta read carefully.
I didn’t compare anything to genocide. The other user is the only person who has used that word. They are also the only person between the two of us who has advocated for violence. All I did was point out that destruction of innocent people‘s property is wrong no matter who the perpetrator is.
I’d not recommend you repeat whatever you wrote, but it looks pretty clear cut like you were twisting the concept of genocide to unfairly malign advocacy for the underserved and that’s why your comment got removed. Mod can probably clarify, but the mere word “genocide” isn’t bad or banned.
It’s not that hard to look up the mod log if you are curious. But if you honestly think that busting headlights is “advocacy for the underserved” then I am afraid that you are part of the problem that I was trying to point out.
I’m just supposing what they might call it. Just sayin, doesn’t look like that comment removal was frivolous.