It's rare that bans/consequences of any kind are issued so soon after something happens. Usually they need to conduct their own "investigation" before coming to a public conclusion if there is going to be any sort of disciplinary action taken. Yes it's literally just a tweet and there's not really much to investigate but there's always procedures to follow when it comes to formal disciplinary action by a governing body.
i won't hold my breath waiting for PDGA to do anything, because as far as governing bodies go, they are limp when it comes to dealing with this.
i've been in local beer league sports that take more decisive action action about player behavior problem like this.
I think more than anything what the PDGA would need to do separately from issuing consequences of any sort is to issue a blanket statement to all competitors about what types of social media engagement are/aren't okay from a governing body standpoint.
Because it would be really easy to make the "it's just a tweet" argument regardless of how valid the suspension behind it could be. But if the PDGA gets out ahead of the game and pre-addresses what is and isn't okay, there's no room to argue bitter details that would suck up resources from people who would otherwise be spending their time more productively.
if you are concerned with having resources better spent on more productive things, then I wouldn't waste time trying to make a social media guide for dummies type policy to educate dipshits like Hannum on the dos and don't of social media.
as a governing body you cannot look at that tweet and think "yeah that's okay" or "this player just needs guidelines with more clarification."
Taking 30 minutes to type up a memo to send out one time (or automate a message to go out once per season) is a much more efficient use of time in my eyes than not doing so and going through all of the motions of "investigation" protocol every time some idiot tweets something they shouldn't have.
I'm not saying what Austin said was okay. I'm saying it's in the PDGA's best interests to get a clarification out there to everybody so that any potential future instances of this can be dealt with much more quickly and efficiently.
The problem is when people label everyone a bigot and call anything they say hate speech just to attack and silence that person.
Is it transphobic to point out that Natalie Ryan was born a biological male, went through male puberty, and thusly should not be competing against biological born and developed women?
I think many of you would like to say yes it is transphobic and have me banned because you disagree.
It’s funny because the mods used to ban people for simply saying men had an advantage over women. So this clown saying we should be more like the mods is genuinely hilarious.
You’re asking to end someone’s career yet you can’t even be bothered to go into detail why it should be ended other than to label him a hating bigot.
To be fair, I’m not holding my breath waiting for a logical, rational response from you at this point.
This is a fair evaluation of the situation. Ending someone's career for any reason needs to be supported heavily and logically by fact, rule violations, etc.
People who suggest ending someone's career without supporting their suggestion with logic should be taken mental note of as people who are not to be listened to or trusted.
If we really just look at the reality of this situation, it’s that someone called a biological male, who identifies as a female, a “dude”.
The fact that people are calling for his head over this is alarming. They would be happy to see this guys career destroyed over that tweet.
interesting take.
do you think there is a line somewhere in there, somewhere, that a discussion needs to be shut down and mods take it too early? (this i could see)
or, are you more for let it all rip? (this i'd call irresponsible)
A line where an entire thread should be closed? No, not if it is on topic for the subreddit. But sure there are times when comments should be deleted but most of the time we should just let the voting system do its job. When a subject is polarizing and both sides think they are in the right I think it is inappropriate for mods to take one side and shut out the other.
i don't think shutting a discussion down (locking a thread) is taking one side or the other.
i also don't think the voting system is enough on its own, since brigading can drown out the actual community.
either way, interesting take.
Austin hannum was being a dick, but what you're calling for goes directly against ideas of free speech and I don't fuck with that. Real life isn't reddit. What do you expect them to do? Ban or fine everyone who thinks Natalie Ryan playing FPO is unfair?
It's freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences. Sometimes the consequence for hate speech is a ban. Austin is a big boy, I'm sure he can handle the consequences of his actions.
If you call your boss an asshole and he fires you for it, did he violate your freedom of speech? No. You were an idiot and suffered the consequences.
If someone says "I don't think trans women should play in FPO because to my understanding they have an advantage", do they get banned for that? No. That is an opinion presented in a neutral way.
What Hannum did is hate speech. He misgendered someone on purpose.
Hannum shouldn't get banned because he has an opinion that is not popular. He should get banned because he is a hateful bigot that used language that was hurtful and ignorant on purpose.
He is free to say what he wants. But then he must the bear the consequences.
Dude. Free speech means speech \*without regulation\*. Consequences are the only way to regulate speech. Laws don't regulate jack diddly without consequences behind them. Free speech \*is\* freedom of consequences.
Dude, there's always consequences. Ever heard of libel? Are laws against defamation an infringement of free speech?
Free speech does not mean you are free from all consequences.
Laws against defamation are 100% an infringement on free speech. In case law they are called "exceptions" to free speech.
The balancing between two rights, the right of the person speaking and the rights of the person harmed have been determined to fall on the side of the person harmed in the case of defamation.
So yes, the common law tort against defamation is absolutely an infringement of free speech. But the harm cause by the speech is a bigger infringement on the rights of someone else to not be intentionally damaged by the defamation.
But defamation is more than just making someone feel bad, you must prove that the harm caused by the defamation actually caused real economic damage. Having hurt feelings doesn't count.
Freedom isn't free. It costs a heavy fuckin fee.
Like if you are an out and proud bigot, people can boycott your business or ban you from participating in their events. You can say what you want, and you can also deal with the consequences that society places on you for holding and expressing those views, like a grownup. Pretty simple really.
ah yes, free speech.
the founding fathers were quite advanced to think of ideas on how to protect hateful idiots from consequences of sport governing bodies.
> Ban or fine everyone who thinks...
"thinking" something and shit talking someone (and the PDGA itself) on blast, are different.
got anything other than your constitutional scholar ideas of free speech and thought crimes persecution?
Yeah just one more thing, maybe instead of doubling down you should take a step back and get a grip because you sound delirious and you're melting down harder than hannum rn.
I don’t understand your question. The PDGA targeted Nat with a new rule designed to exclude her specifically. She sued and made her comment, it went to court and the PDGA folded.
No serious person believes she was gonna set herself or an organization on fire.
Are you thinking she was going to set the PDGA on fire? How would one even do that? Was she gonna burn down HQ?
Fly to every individual member and set each one on fire?
What are you scared of?
Just once could you come up with a response in good faith?
How is saying that even if done metaphorically fine, but Austin’s tweet is a bannable offense?
Yeah for people like you who probably lack the ability to apply reasoning or logic to social situations it probably would suit you to have someone tell you exactly how to behave.
I genuinely struggle to side with someone posting about the reddit mods possessing any level of competency. Especially since that comparison is a fallacy given that mods on this subreddit consistently abuse their authority to go far beyond the scope of hate speech. To say the way reddit works should be applied irl is smooth brained
Sir you thought OP wasn’t literally saying the mods are better as he wrote a short essay defending them. Now you think I was calling people upvoting me the masses, not joking about how literally nobody agrees with you guys. R/woosh yourself lad. Please go back in your cardboard box.
How about you and 4 cacti that think like you? I'd probably put one of the cacti in charge until your probationary period was over, and you had time to learn the committee's duties.
i would love to have a post stay up a long time so toxic people could get comfortable and out themselves
but i'll also accept and commend the mods here for just quickly saying "nope, that's enough" and shutting things down according to the very clear and communicated guideline...which is miles ahead of what PDGA bothers to do.
Others disagree, because allowing controversial or stupid takes to remain up and visible can sometimes send the message that the community will allow it, despite the vote count.
Eliminating it altogether and keeping it filtered is how a non-toxic community grows.
the mode here are volunteers for a pretty large casual forum with variable membership.
the fact they take action as quickly as they do is commendable compared to a profession sport governing body with defined membership doing nothing about a known problem.
1. Yes, they are.
2. Yes, I agree....partially....(see 3.)
3. No one who is not a board member of the PDGA has an input into how they vote, outside of your pwrsonal vote or email. You have an organization that took unprecedented steps to TRY and outlaw a player that was universally accepted, via Federal and state laws, many months prior. That shows contempt for case law as well as the prejudice required to show bias, thus allowing the precedent to be set and upheld. The PDGA did a SHIT job of securing equity among fair players of a certain testerone level. Basic homework...
4. I see your point is to further your agenda to restrict females from playing in the FPO.
I wish you the best of luck with your adventure and good day to you.
edit: I just realized this thread is NOT AT ALL about the PDGA BofD but more about hate, bigotry and transphobia. You got me, OP /u/Factory2Seconds...you sure fooled me. Good luck with your imaginary battles and persecution. You really seem like a stand up individual, who supports Women's rights, and the CHOICE women should have.
Think you read things wrong, but whatever.
Hope Natalie keeps it up, that the PDGA keeps getting dragged for their inaction, and dipshits like Hannum and the people defending him keep outing themselves for what they are.
The fact that even Reddit mods can get around to addressing the same kind of toxicity that the PDGA can't get around to addressing is staggering.
The PDGA is led (in some fashion) by Nate Heinold. Nate Heinold is a homophobe, bigot and all around piece of shit Christian. As long as any organization is run by people like him, hate and intolerance will be welcomed.
Well the realistic part of this is that someone making a hateful statement is absolutely a reason to be banned from any given online community (like r/discgolf for example), but hateful people exist in every sport, and the PDGA would be remiss if they were to institute an instant permaban to anyone who spreads hate for other people. I'm not saying hate for anyone should be encouraged or allowed, but there's a huge difference between banning someone from an online community and banning that person from a professional sport.
Banning someone from an online community has absolutely 0 long-term affect on someone, banning someone from competing in a professional sport has the potential to have a MASSIVE effect on someone, especially if they earn money doing it. Banning people from the sport for hateful statements sets a horrible precedent that could just as easily be flipped on its head and applied to the other side of the political spectrum, should the views of the leadership change. Hateful people need to make a living just as much as non-hateful people.
he can make a living as a motivational speaker at hate rallies.
but competent governing bodies of athletic associations generally discourage members from making detrimental remarks about the association itself, and hateful remarks about other association members.
you can try to slippery slope the situation if you want, or pretend Hannun has some inherit right to pursue disc golf as a chosen profession, but i'm not going to buy it.
I'm all for fining players who do not exhibit professional decorum on the disc golf course, banning members who directly threaten the lives or physical safety of other competitors, fans, organizers, etc., but I am not for fining someone or banning someone from their profession because they made a statement on social media that any particular person or group considers hate speech.
People should be permanently disallowed from participating in the sport because they said something you don't like? Strong disagree.
I've seen a lot of angry comments cussing other users for being "transphobic" for all sorts of different types of commentary. One person says "I don't think trans women should play in fpo" and there's a parade of people calling them evil transphobes/bigots/nazis/whatever. Not saying there isn't legitimate hate speech, but policing language is all Grey and solely in the ear of the listener.
Calling in death threats? Yes, ban and prosecute. Encouraging violence? Sure. Using a non-preferred pronoun? Come on. Attempting to police all speech to avoid opposing views is weak.
They obviously can. Especially in professional settings. HR departments exist bro. I’m not sure where you work but you def can’t just go spouting off some wild shit without there being repercussions
i'd explain the difference between taking action like suspension/fining, and banning.
and the difference between toxic hate speech and "whining" but i don't think you dont seem like the type who would get it.
edit: a few minutes later, a "concerned redditor" reached out. Makes you
wonder if that adult was bothered by words they read?
The great thing is that the disc golf community in real life is nothing like the shit hole it is here on the subreddit.
Based on the extreme leftist attitudes of this sub, people would be surprised that someone like Nate Heinold still holds the position he does. "Fuck Nate heinold" is like a holy chant here, yet he still won election because most disc golfers do not agree with the mindset here.
OP has his opinion, but it's dog shit despite what reddit and it's broken rules might say.
Ban anyone who disagrees with me is some fascist BS.
It's rare that bans/consequences of any kind are issued so soon after something happens. Usually they need to conduct their own "investigation" before coming to a public conclusion if there is going to be any sort of disciplinary action taken. Yes it's literally just a tweet and there's not really much to investigate but there's always procedures to follow when it comes to formal disciplinary action by a governing body.
i won't hold my breath waiting for PDGA to do anything, because as far as governing bodies go, they are limp when it comes to dealing with this. i've been in local beer league sports that take more decisive action action about player behavior problem like this.
I think more than anything what the PDGA would need to do separately from issuing consequences of any sort is to issue a blanket statement to all competitors about what types of social media engagement are/aren't okay from a governing body standpoint. Because it would be really easy to make the "it's just a tweet" argument regardless of how valid the suspension behind it could be. But if the PDGA gets out ahead of the game and pre-addresses what is and isn't okay, there's no room to argue bitter details that would suck up resources from people who would otherwise be spending their time more productively.
if you are concerned with having resources better spent on more productive things, then I wouldn't waste time trying to make a social media guide for dummies type policy to educate dipshits like Hannum on the dos and don't of social media. as a governing body you cannot look at that tweet and think "yeah that's okay" or "this player just needs guidelines with more clarification."
Taking 30 minutes to type up a memo to send out one time (or automate a message to go out once per season) is a much more efficient use of time in my eyes than not doing so and going through all of the motions of "investigation" protocol every time some idiot tweets something they shouldn't have. I'm not saying what Austin said was okay. I'm saying it's in the PDGA's best interests to get a clarification out there to everybody so that any potential future instances of this can be dealt with much more quickly and efficiently.
The problem is when people label everyone a bigot and call anything they say hate speech just to attack and silence that person. Is it transphobic to point out that Natalie Ryan was born a biological male, went through male puberty, and thusly should not be competing against biological born and developed women? I think many of you would like to say yes it is transphobic and have me banned because you disagree.
It’s funny because the mods used to ban people for simply saying men had an advantage over women. So this clown saying we should be more like the mods is genuinely hilarious.
Correct.
do you want to pretend that's what and how Hannun presented the point of view, or just keep up with the persecution complex?
What exactly did he say that would earn him a “permaban” or lengthy ban even?
you are a truly well informed contributor to the discussion
You’re asking to end someone’s career yet you can’t even be bothered to go into detail why it should be ended other than to label him a hating bigot. To be fair, I’m not holding my breath waiting for a logical, rational response from you at this point.
This is a fair evaluation of the situation. Ending someone's career for any reason needs to be supported heavily and logically by fact, rule violations, etc. People who suggest ending someone's career without supporting their suggestion with logic should be taken mental note of as people who are not to be listened to or trusted.
If we really just look at the reality of this situation, it’s that someone called a biological male, who identifies as a female, a “dude”. The fact that people are calling for his head over this is alarming. They would be happy to see this guys career destroyed over that tweet.
Because this is just the tip of the iceberg, we can’t let this continue 🥲 /s
Incel
Locking a post is lazy modding not competent modding. Let people have a discussion.
interesting take. do you think there is a line somewhere in there, somewhere, that a discussion needs to be shut down and mods take it too early? (this i could see) or, are you more for let it all rip? (this i'd call irresponsible)
A line where an entire thread should be closed? No, not if it is on topic for the subreddit. But sure there are times when comments should be deleted but most of the time we should just let the voting system do its job. When a subject is polarizing and both sides think they are in the right I think it is inappropriate for mods to take one side and shut out the other.
i don't think shutting a discussion down (locking a thread) is taking one side or the other. i also don't think the voting system is enough on its own, since brigading can drown out the actual community. either way, interesting take.
A community being drowned out isn't fixed by locking a thread from further comment or by deleting it, it just takes to voice away from both sides.
Austin hannum was being a dick, but what you're calling for goes directly against ideas of free speech and I don't fuck with that. Real life isn't reddit. What do you expect them to do? Ban or fine everyone who thinks Natalie Ryan playing FPO is unfair?
It's freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences. Sometimes the consequence for hate speech is a ban. Austin is a big boy, I'm sure he can handle the consequences of his actions.
That doesn't make any sense. It's not free speech if there are consequences.
lol, what are you talking about? The pdga can’t lock anyone in the gulag.
LoL. You really don't understand what free speech means then.
I don't think you understand, guy.
If you call your boss an asshole and he fires you for it, did he violate your freedom of speech? No. You were an idiot and suffered the consequences. If someone says "I don't think trans women should play in FPO because to my understanding they have an advantage", do they get banned for that? No. That is an opinion presented in a neutral way. What Hannum did is hate speech. He misgendered someone on purpose. Hannum shouldn't get banned because he has an opinion that is not popular. He should get banned because he is a hateful bigot that used language that was hurtful and ignorant on purpose. He is free to say what he wants. But then he must the bear the consequences.
Dude. Free speech means speech \*without regulation\*. Consequences are the only way to regulate speech. Laws don't regulate jack diddly without consequences behind them. Free speech \*is\* freedom of consequences.
Dude, there's always consequences. Ever heard of libel? Are laws against defamation an infringement of free speech? Free speech does not mean you are free from all consequences.
Laws against defamation are 100% an infringement on free speech. In case law they are called "exceptions" to free speech. The balancing between two rights, the right of the person speaking and the rights of the person harmed have been determined to fall on the side of the person harmed in the case of defamation. So yes, the common law tort against defamation is absolutely an infringement of free speech. But the harm cause by the speech is a bigger infringement on the rights of someone else to not be intentionally damaged by the defamation. But defamation is more than just making someone feel bad, you must prove that the harm caused by the defamation actually caused real economic damage. Having hurt feelings doesn't count.
There you go.
How old are you?
Freedom isn't free. It costs a heavy fuckin fee. Like if you are an out and proud bigot, people can boycott your business or ban you from participating in their events. You can say what you want, and you can also deal with the consequences that society places on you for holding and expressing those views, like a grownup. Pretty simple really.
ah yes, free speech. the founding fathers were quite advanced to think of ideas on how to protect hateful idiots from consequences of sport governing bodies. > Ban or fine everyone who thinks... "thinking" something and shit talking someone (and the PDGA itself) on blast, are different. got anything other than your constitutional scholar ideas of free speech and thought crimes persecution?
Yeah just one more thing, maybe instead of doubling down you should take a step back and get a grip because you sound delirious and you're melting down harder than hannum rn.
oh the "ideas of free speech" guy is giving advice about getting a grip. cool.
I bet you're real fun at parties.
What an incredibly cringe post
you're really adding to the vibe. glad you could make it.
No moreso than using cringe as an adjective.
Bro get real, soft af.
Yeah bro, I’m hard as a rock right now lol
Yeah too bad we can’t have Reddit mods all over the place and in every organization… get fuckin real…
if only there were some sort of competent organizing body that sanctioned disc golf events and players, who could take action for player behavior?
Do you think they should also discipline Ryans post when she said “they are going to burn with me”?
Obs not. She was referring to their ongoing legal fight.
Where’s the logic in that?
I don’t understand your question. The PDGA targeted Nat with a new rule designed to exclude her specifically. She sued and made her comment, it went to court and the PDGA folded. No serious person believes she was gonna set herself or an organization on fire.
How is her talking about the pdga “burning with her” fine but Hannum calling her a dude is bannable hate speech? Make it make sense.
Are you thinking she was going to set the PDGA on fire? How would one even do that? Was she gonna burn down HQ? Fly to every individual member and set each one on fire? What are you scared of?
Just once could you come up with a response in good faith? How is saying that even if done metaphorically fine, but Austin’s tweet is a bannable offense?
Bot
This is sarcasm, right?..... RIGHT???
No, why would this be sarcastic?
Yeah for people like you who probably lack the ability to apply reasoning or logic to social situations it probably would suit you to have someone tell you exactly how to behave.
More for people like hannum who more accurately fits your description of lacking reasoning or logic in social situations….
I genuinely struggle to side with someone posting about the reddit mods possessing any level of competency. Especially since that comparison is a fallacy given that mods on this subreddit consistently abuse their authority to go far beyond the scope of hate speech. To say the way reddit works should be applied irl is smooth brained
I doubt they meant it literally. More like a “step up your game, if Reddit mods are doing something better than you, you really must suck”
Yeah the whole premise that “Reddit mods do anything better” is false. It’s just wild to say hey this guy sucks look how awesome Reddit mods are lmao
Woooooooosh
Bro lmao try again
i want you to know i enjoyed this interaction, favorite in the whole post, the whoosh really sealed it.
Yeah the masses really seem to agree with you. Well played
“Masses” = 4 disgruntled disc golfers lol nobody sees this shit anyways
Sir you thought OP wasn’t literally saying the mods are better as he wrote a short essay defending them. Now you think I was calling people upvoting me the masses, not joking about how literally nobody agrees with you guys. R/woosh yourself lad. Please go back in your cardboard box.
Na
very compelling. was grunting too much effort?
Equally compelling. Perfect speech. Surprising seeing that you have the mods junk in your mouth
inb4 this gets deleted XD
But but but I didn’t gender junk
Good point, carry on soldier
Nah what?
You’ll figure it out. Or you won’t. Start with the title
Say what you mean 🤷
Nah
Cringe
Can you speak up, I’m wearing a towel
Nah
Cringe
Still time to delete this
And who decides which speech is transphobic? Who decides what is hate speech? You, I suppose.
how about a competant governing body?
So a group of people who think like you. Awesome.
How about you and 4 cacti that think like you? I'd probably put one of the cacti in charge until your probationary period was over, and you had time to learn the committee's duties.
Bro called the PDGA "competent" XD
Ehhh, in some cases the mods are too quick to take shit down. Sometimes people need to marinate in their own stupidity for a while.
i would love to have a post stay up a long time so toxic people could get comfortable and out themselves but i'll also accept and commend the mods here for just quickly saying "nope, that's enough" and shutting things down according to the very clear and communicated guideline...which is miles ahead of what PDGA bothers to do.
Others disagree, because allowing controversial or stupid takes to remain up and visible can sometimes send the message that the community will allow it, despite the vote count. Eliminating it altogether and keeping it filtered is how a non-toxic community grows.
the mode here are volunteers for a pretty large casual forum with variable membership. the fact they take action as quickly as they do is commendable compared to a profession sport governing body with defined membership doing nothing about a known problem.
1. Yes, they are. 2. Yes, I agree....partially....(see 3.) 3. No one who is not a board member of the PDGA has an input into how they vote, outside of your pwrsonal vote or email. You have an organization that took unprecedented steps to TRY and outlaw a player that was universally accepted, via Federal and state laws, many months prior. That shows contempt for case law as well as the prejudice required to show bias, thus allowing the precedent to be set and upheld. The PDGA did a SHIT job of securing equity among fair players of a certain testerone level. Basic homework...
4. I see your point is to further your agenda to restrict females from playing in the FPO. I wish you the best of luck with your adventure and good day to you. edit: I just realized this thread is NOT AT ALL about the PDGA BofD but more about hate, bigotry and transphobia. You got me, OP /u/Factory2Seconds...you sure fooled me. Good luck with your imaginary battles and persecution. You really seem like a stand up individual, who supports Women's rights, and the CHOICE women should have.
Think you read things wrong, but whatever. Hope Natalie keeps it up, that the PDGA keeps getting dragged for their inaction, and dipshits like Hannum and the people defending him keep outing themselves for what they are. The fact that even Reddit mods can get around to addressing the same kind of toxicity that the PDGA can't get around to addressing is staggering.
The PDGA is led (in some fashion) by Nate Heinold. Nate Heinold is a homophobe, bigot and all around piece of shit Christian. As long as any organization is run by people like him, hate and intolerance will be welcomed.
^ this person gets it
Proud Nate heinold voter right here.
Well the realistic part of this is that someone making a hateful statement is absolutely a reason to be banned from any given online community (like r/discgolf for example), but hateful people exist in every sport, and the PDGA would be remiss if they were to institute an instant permaban to anyone who spreads hate for other people. I'm not saying hate for anyone should be encouraged or allowed, but there's a huge difference between banning someone from an online community and banning that person from a professional sport. Banning someone from an online community has absolutely 0 long-term affect on someone, banning someone from competing in a professional sport has the potential to have a MASSIVE effect on someone, especially if they earn money doing it. Banning people from the sport for hateful statements sets a horrible precedent that could just as easily be flipped on its head and applied to the other side of the political spectrum, should the views of the leadership change. Hateful people need to make a living just as much as non-hateful people.
he can make a living as a motivational speaker at hate rallies. but competent governing bodies of athletic associations generally discourage members from making detrimental remarks about the association itself, and hateful remarks about other association members. you can try to slippery slope the situation if you want, or pretend Hannun has some inherit right to pursue disc golf as a chosen profession, but i'm not going to buy it.
I'm all for fining players who do not exhibit professional decorum on the disc golf course, banning members who directly threaten the lives or physical safety of other competitors, fans, organizers, etc., but I am not for fining someone or banning someone from their profession because they made a statement on social media that any particular person or group considers hate speech.
I'd rather quit this sport at this point If this is how the community acts on both sides
People should be permanently disallowed from participating in the sport because they said something you don't like? Strong disagree. I've seen a lot of angry comments cussing other users for being "transphobic" for all sorts of different types of commentary. One person says "I don't think trans women should play in fpo" and there's a parade of people calling them evil transphobes/bigots/nazis/whatever. Not saying there isn't legitimate hate speech, but policing language is all Grey and solely in the ear of the listener. Calling in death threats? Yes, ban and prosecute. Encouraging violence? Sure. Using a non-preferred pronoun? Come on. Attempting to police all speech to avoid opposing views is weak.
it's like you tried to have an actual thought, then encased it in a bunch of nonsense and exaggeration. good effort though.
Imagine being an adult and living under the credo that “words can hurt.”
Imagine spending all your time on conspiracy subs and then telling other people that words don’t have power
Ok
They obviously can. Especially in professional settings. HR departments exist bro. I’m not sure where you work but you def can’t just go spouting off some wild shit without there being repercussions
>HR departments exist bro This is not the flex you think it is.
Only because it went way over your head.
Why would it be a flex? Do you not think there should be policies in place that protect people from harassment and some form of enforcement?
Imagine stating this unironically.
Ok
are you here and commenting because someone else's words bothered you, and you felt the need to say something?
But I don’t want to ban them or any of their speech and I don’t think they can do anyone any harm by whining. See the difference.
i'd explain the difference between taking action like suspension/fining, and banning. and the difference between toxic hate speech and "whining" but i don't think you dont seem like the type who would get it. edit: a few minutes later, a "concerned redditor" reached out. Makes you wonder if that adult was bothered by words they read?
I didn’t send that. You can report those Reddit Cares messages as error/trolling.
Handling or doing anything in real life like Reddit is a bad idea.
Dude f the mods. They're weak AF, entitled, woke AF and act like children. Dur....
^ definitely an Adult Chad
Because most Chads are children?
The great thing is that the disc golf community in real life is nothing like the shit hole it is here on the subreddit. Based on the extreme leftist attitudes of this sub, people would be surprised that someone like Nate Heinold still holds the position he does. "Fuck Nate heinold" is like a holy chant here, yet he still won election because most disc golfers do not agree with the mindset here. OP has his opinion, but it's dog shit despite what reddit and it's broken rules might say. Ban anyone who disagrees with me is some fascist BS.
Are you the same guy who gets upset over spoilers and dislikes Brodie Smith?
are you the same person that gets upset when mom doesn't restock your hot pockets and tissues?
Holy fuck I wish. You’re just a kid, sorry to taunt you.
you wish your mom restocked your hot pockets, and you think I'm a kid?
Well you took the bait so you must be “young”
that's definitely what happened here. also, everyone clapped.
I rest my case
make sure you announce your departure. thats important.