Sociopath Community

Good said: 

I dont get the "how dare they" thing, I don't feel it. i can understand it, but i dont feel it and i think its stupid.

You commented at one point how this is one of the few places where people can say the N-Word. If that ever changed, it'd become the new rebel word. 

If there is no pedo stuff, the people who complain, won't complain.

Bullshit, we see people who aren't pedos accused too, and when the topic isn't even the focus it's still what they'll focus on. 

Example: Do you think Tryptamine is a pedo, yes or no?

He was not a part of the Witch Hunt groups and as a result he was put in the line of fire for a little while. Do you think it's good for the userbase to have people going around calling innocent people pedos in every topic they speak in? 

We have this as recently as the Turquie case to use as a direct example, Turquie certainly wasn't the one sitting around talking openly about pedophilia like some sort of Jim clone or Xadem exercise of speech, the ones making a big ruckus over it were the #MeToo people here essentially spamming until nothing else could be focused on. 

As we saw with CS and Chapo, once they felt pushed away activity didn't go up, it went down, and once CS tried (poorly) to sneak back on here we saw some of her haters return soon afterwards. 

If this does not work, we might have to move all pedo-talk to a spam category or delete it. But we can test it first. I can see how we might need to do both. But only when its excessive and makes the forum look bad. Literary for PR only.

Figure who is more openly talking about pedophilia, the pedo or the pedo accuser. 

If it's about PR, now you see why it's dicey. The ones #MeToo-ing create an ingroup that essentially tells others to stay away, while pedos aren't really talking like they are pro-pedo until cornered (unless Jim-ing). 

In an environment where the accusers can talk about it still as a way to try to shut people down, you don't really solve the presentation issue. 

Bump is not spamming, if its not spammed lol

How many bumps is spam?

I'd gone with half the front page as a soft limit, and even our spammier ones seem to have slowly picked up on that. For topic posting they tend to stick to around five, and believe it or not that is progress from them. 

Turncoat said: 

Good said: 

I dont get the "how dare they" thing, I don't feel it. i can understand it, but i dont feel it and i think its stupid.

You commented at one point how this is one of the few places where people can say the N-Word. If that ever changed, it'd become the new rebel word. 

People dont mind niggers, like they do pedophiles. The difference is like the difference between a nazi and a jew in nazi ideology.

If there is no pedo stuff, the people who complain, won't complain.

Bullshit, we see people who aren't pedos accused too, and when the topic isn't even the focus it's still what they'll focus on. 

Example: Do you think Tryptamine is a pedo, yes or no?

He was not a part of the Witch Hunt groups and as a result he was put in the line of fire for a little while. Do you think it's good for the userbase to have people going around calling innocent people pedos in every topic they speak in? 

---

We have this as recently as the Turquie case to use as a direct example, Turquie certainly wasn't the one sitting around talking openly about pedophilia like some sort of Jim clone or Xadem exercise of speech, the ones making a big ruckus over it were the #MeToo people here essentially spamming until nothing else could be focused on. 

As we saw with CS and Chapo, once they felt pushed away activity didn't go up, it went down, and once CS tried (poorly) to sneak back on here we saw some of her haters return soon afterwards. 

If this does not work, we might have to move all pedo-talk to a spam category or delete it. But we can test it first. I can see how we might need to do both. But only when its excessive and makes the forum look bad. Literary for PR only.

Figure who is more openly talking about pedophilia, the pedo or the pedo accuser. 

If it's about PR, now you see why it's dicey. The ones #MeToo-ing create an ingroup that essentially tells others to stay away, while pedos aren't really talking like they are pro-pedo until cornered (unless Jim-ing). 

It is not dicey. If non-pedos accuse even real pedos in every post everywhere and it gives bad PR, it is should be removed, IMO. But I will not decide on this myself alone. PR is more important IMO. We can ban the pedos as well, if we have enough people to make up for the banned ones.

Racists and other controversial opinions are not like pedophiles and pedo talk. They are different categories.

Bump is not spamming, if its not spammed lol

How many bumps is spam?

I'd gone with half the front page as a soft limit, and even our spammier ones seem to have slowly picked up on that. For topic posting they tend to stick to around five, and believe it or not that is progress from them. 

Idk, we can decide on a number, this is a minor issue. it depends on how often it is, rather then a number.

Good said: 

Turncoat said: 

Good said: 

I dont get the "how dare they" thing, I don't feel it. i can understand it, but i dont feel it and i think its stupid.

You commented at one point how this is one of the few places where people can say the N-Word. If that ever changed, it'd become the new rebel word. 

People dont mind niggers, like they do pedophiles. The difference is like the difference between a nazi and a jew in nazi ideology.

What if Anti-Semitism is the next offense that Cloudflare starts tackling? 

If it's about PR, then you're kind of stuck towing the line right? No more jew jokes if the internet says so? 

If this does not work, we might have to move all pedo-talk to a spam category or delete it. But we can test it first. I can see how we might need to do both. But only when its excessive and makes the forum look bad. Literary for PR only.

Figure who is more openly talking about pedophilia, the pedo or the pedo accuser. 

If it's about PR, now you see why it's dicey. The ones #MeToo-ing create an ingroup that essentially tells others to stay away, while pedos aren't really talking like they are pro-pedo until cornered (unless Jim-ing). 

It is not dicey. If non-pedos accuse even real pedos in every post everywhere and it gives bad PR, it is should be removed, IMO.

So you agree anti-pedo posts should go down then? 

Pretty sure they aren't going to like that. 

Racists and other controversial opinions are not like pedophiles and pedo talk. They are different categories.

As a matter of the harm itself, yes. 

For how people use it in conversation, not so much. 

Turncoat said: 

Good said: 

Turncoat said: 

You commented at one point how this is one of the few places where people can say the N-Word. If that ever changed, it'd become the new rebel word. 

People dont mind niggers, like they do pedophiles. The difference is like the difference between a nazi and a jew in nazi ideology.

What if Anti-Semitism is the next offense that Cloudflare starts tackling? 

If it's about PR, then you're kind of stuck towing the line right? No more jew jokes if the internet says so? 

If that happens we can talk about it. Now if we are to decide how likely it is to be on the same level as pedophilia in the foreseeable future, it is nearly 0%.

Figure who is more openly talking about pedophilia, the pedo or the pedo accuser. 

If it's about PR, now you see why it's dicey. The ones #MeToo-ing create an ingroup that essentially tells others to stay away, while pedos aren't really talking like they are pro-pedo until cornered (unless Jim-ing). 

It is not dicey. If non-pedos accuse even real pedos in every post everywhere and it gives bad PR, it is should be removed, IMO.

So you agree anti-pedo posts should go down then? 

If they harm the PR in the same way as pedophilia, yes. They can be moved to the spam section.

Racists and other controversial opinions are not like pedophiles and pedo talk. They are different categories.

As a matter of the harm itself, yes. 

For how people use it in conversation, not so much. 

It is very different in both.

Good said: 

Turncoat said: 

Good said: 

People dont mind niggers, like they do pedophiles. The difference is like the difference between a nazi and a jew in nazi ideology.

What if Anti-Semitism is the next offense that Cloudflare starts tackling? 

If it's about PR, then you're kind of stuck towing the line right? No more jew jokes if the internet says so? 

If that happens we can talk about it. Now if we are to decide how likely it is to be on the same level as pedophilia in the foreseeable future, it is nearly 0%.

There is a difference between pedophilia and the discussion of it though, at this point the solution seems closer to making the word itself taboo almost, like an N-word situation. 

It is not dicey. If non-pedos accuse even real pedos in every post everywhere and it gives bad PR, it is should be removed, IMO.

So you agree anti-pedo posts should go down then? 

If they harm the PR in the same way as pedophilia, yes. They can be moved to the spam section.

I can see people not really enjoying the fact that they can't call out pedophiles anymore. 

Now the solution stands to hit more than the pedophiles themselves, lending to them complaining about feeling punished for how other people behave. 

It following that has the room to be lumped together  into a "freedom of speech" problem plainly. 

Racists and ot her controversial opinions are not like pedophiles and pedo talk. They are different categories.

As a matter of the harm itself, yes. 

For how people use it in conversation, not so much. 

It is very different in both.

For it's use as a tool of hate speech to ad hom an opponent? 

As a tool it is not that different, even if it's origin context is very different. 

Turncoat said: 

Good said: 

Turncoat said: 

What if Anti-Semitism is the next offense that Cloudflare starts tackling? 

If it's about PR, then you're kind of stuck towing the line right? No more jew jokes if the internet says so? 

If that happens we can talk about it. Now if we are to decide how likely it is to be on the same level as pedophilia in the foreseeable future, it is nearly 0%.

There is a difference between pedophilia and the discussion of it though, at this point the solution seems closer to making the word itself taboo almost, like an N-word situation.

It is fine to discuss it. It is not fine to spam it to the point where people want to leave the forum. If this means we have to purge discussions of it or any mentions, I think we should. We have not done it and the forum is only dwindling down.

So you agree anti-pedo posts should go down then? 

If they harm the PR in the same way as pedophilia, yes. They can be moved to the spam section.

I can see people not really enjoying the fact that they can't call out pedophiles anymore. 

Now the solution stands to hit more than the pedophiles themselves, lending to them complaining about feeling punished for how other people behave. 

It following that has the room to be lumped together  into a "freedom of speech" problem plainly. 

Well, that does not matter, since PR is more important. In my view anyway. They can be mad, thats too bad. The alternative is a dead forum. However, as I mentioned, if we have enough people here, we can just ban the pedophiles, and then the complainers will be satisfied.

As a matter of the harm itself, yes. 

For how people use it in conversation, not so much. 

It is very different in both.

For it's use as a tool of hate speech to ad hom an opponent? 

As a tool it is not that different, even if it's origin context is very different. 

It is very different, it is like nigger = hammer, pedo = nuclear weapon

I think you have an issue seeing the extreme nature of pedophilia to most people.

EDIT: in any case, casual, or occasional mentions/talks/discussions can be ignored. Only intervene when it is too much and gives a bad reputation.

Turncoat said: 

Example: Do you think Tryptamine is a pedo, yes or no?

 Tryptamine was trying to groom a 15 year old on Discord, probably has on more than that occasion given how comfortable he was doing it. Yes Tryptamine is a pedophile, he just wasn't advertising it the way Jim was

PastelPink said: 

Turncoat said: 

Example: Do you think Tryptamine is a pedo, yes or no?

 Tryptamine was trying to groom a 15 year old on Discord, probably has on more than that occasion given how comfortable he was doing it. Yes Tryptamine is a pedophile, he just wasn't advertising it the way Jim was

How would you propose that be handled as a forum? 

Good said: 

Turncoat said: 

Good said: 

If that happens we can talk about it. Now if we are to decide how likely it is to be on the same level as pedophilia in the foreseeable future, it is nearly 0%.

There is a difference between pedophilia and the discussion of it though, at this point the solution seems closer to making the word itself taboo almost, like an N-word situation.

It is fine to discuss it. It is not fine to spam it to the point where people want to leave the forum. If this means we have to purge discussions of it or any mentions, I think we should. We have not done it and the forum is only dwindling down.

Alright, so anti-pedo sentiment you want censored if they are using it as a spammy form of hate speech.

If they harm the PR in the same way as pedophilia, yes. They can be moved to the spam section.

I can see people not really enjoying the fact that they can't call out pedophiles anymore. 

Now the solution stands to hit more than the pedophiles themselves, lending to them complaining about feeling punished for how other people behave. 

It following that has the room to be lumped together  into a "freedom of speech" problem plainly. 

Well, that does not matter, since PR is more important. In my view anyway. They can be mad, thats too bad. The alternative is a dead forum.

If it's handled wrong it could be what ends up killing it. 

It's a delicate situation purely over population size. Every forum has creeps or whatever, but they don't throw as much of a fuss over how they don't take up as much space. 

Jim energy is mostly gone too, who even brags about it now?

However, as I mentioned, if we have enough people here, we can just ban the pedophiles, and then the complainers will be satisfied.

How do you prove they're even a pedophile? 

Lol you'd ban Tryp? 

It is very different in both.

For it's use as a tool of hate speech to ad hom an opponent? 

As a tool it is not that different, even if it's origin context is very different. 

It is very different, it is like nigger = hammer, pedo = nuclear weapon

I think you have an issue seeing the extreme nature of pedophilia to most people.

I am not seeing pedophiles though, I am seeing their words on a forum and, in turn, how the internet uses such languages to shut things down. 

EDIT: in any case, casual, or occasional mentions/talks/discussions can be ignored. Only intervene when it is too much and gives a bad reputation.

What do we call it when it comes up, The PR Clause? A Spam one? 

Turncoat said: 

Good said: 

Turncoat said: 

There is a difference between pedophilia and the discussion of it though, at this point the solution seems closer to making the word itself taboo almost, like an N-word situation.

It is fine to discuss it. It is not fine to spam it to the point where people want to leave the forum. If this means we have to purge discussions of it or any mentions, I think we should. We have not done it and the forum is only dwindling down.

Alright, so anti-pedo sentiment you want censored if they are using it as a spammy form of hate speech.

I can see people not really enjoying the fact that they can't call out pedophiles anymore. 

Now the solution stands to hit more than the pedophiles themselves, lending to them complaining about feeling punished for how other people behave. 

It following that has the room to be lumped together  into a "freedom of speech" problem plainly. 

Well, that does not matter, since PR is more important. In my view anyway. They can be mad, thats too bad. The alternative is a dead forum.

If it's handled wrong it could be what ends up killing it. 

It's a delicate situation purely over population size. Every forum has creeps or whatever, but they don't throw as much of a fuss over how they don't take up as much space. 

Yeah, well no one said it's easy. Tho I don't think it's super hard either.

However, as I mentioned, if we have enough people here, we can just ban the pedophiles, and then the complainers will be satisfied.

How do you prove they're even a pedophile? 

Since this is not a court, we do not really have to prove it. Of course, we should want screenshots or other evidence, to prevent wild which hunts from managing to ban people who are not pedos. And if the accusers can't provide it, then they will shut up or get punished themselves. And the word of valued members can count as evidence, depends on context.

Lol you'd ban Tryp? 

As one of the main admins on the discord PD, where we reached 3k members recently, I can tell you that we do ban old members when it is necessary. When the drama dies out we sometimes let them back in. Depends on what they did. For example, just a few weeks ago, there was a member that would create a LOT of traffic and content and got a lot of new people in. However, he was a toxic asshole. So we tolerated him for a few months, but eventually, his toxicity outweighed the contribution. He was a well-established member though and a lot of people liked him. So when we banned him, another of PDs most important members, who was also an admin, left. 4-5 more very active members also left. They created a new server and were active there. Today their server got nuked, which is why I am on SC and not playing a video game, was talking on VC.

Overall, it was the better decision for the PD community and server, even though 1 newly valued member and 5 year old admin thats super valued member had to leave. There is a season for everything. I do hope that admin comes back, but so far its not happening.

Ofc, I don't want to ban people at all. But it is necessary when they drive everyone else away. I do not see it currently necessary to do this with Tryp. But just because he is an old member, should not exclude him from the consequences.

For it's use as a tool of hate speech to ad hom an opponent? 

As a tool it is not that different, even if it's origin context is very different. 

It is very different, it is like nigger = hammer, pedo = nuclear weapon

I think you have an issue seeing the extreme nature of pedophilia to most people.

I am not seeing pedophiles though, I am seeing their words on a forum and, in turn, how the internet uses such languages to shut things down. 

Well, maybe you need glasses. I have personally seen some of those you do not see admit to their deeds.

EDIT: in any case, casual, or occasional mentions/talks/discussions can be ignored. Only intervene when it is too much and gives a bad reputation.

What do we call it when it comes up, The PR Clause? A Spam one? 

The pedo clause, we just selectively enforce it, when we subjectively think it is time.

I do not see how this forum can continue if we do not take care of the pedophilia. I will respect the votes ofc. I am just saying.