Dispute with mod

Class from a moderator, we can clearly see what standards and attitudes towards posters are like from this post. It proves everything that's being said. The editing of ordinary non abusive posts is plain and simple censorship.

____________________________________

Warned: Trolling moderators. As you have done on every post you make in these threads.

ghbtp is not condoning sexual assault or anything of the sort, between consenting adults it's normal, not sure why you're twisting it into something it's not, pretty much proving my point. Decent people, give over and stop being offended by reality.

"Grab her by the pussy" is not condoning sexual assault?

Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful - I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.

And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.

Bush: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab them by the p****. You can do anything.

That honestly sounds consensual to you?

And if you think that's normal talk for men to have, I can guarantee I have not, nor any of my friends talked like that about women.

Actually, scratch that. Maybe when we were 15 and didn't know any better, but certainly not as mature adults.

The fact you think this dialogue is somehow normal behaviour and that they're not talking about non consensual sexual assault is repulsive and a very good reason why posters should be allowed bring up the fact that Trump a rapist on thread.

By censoring it, it is now becoming provable that it is normalising sexual assault.

Nobody cares if you're offended by it, that's not the point.

'Locker room' talk as you put it, is unguarded talk between people. A true insight into what goes on in their mind. What we all saw there was unfiltered Donald Trump.

I personally don't talk to my friends in the locker room about grabbing women like that and I'd be quite taken aback if one of my friends came out with it.

Again, it's not anyone being 'offended', it's more 'wow, I didn't realise you were a letch'.

Donald Trump is clearly a letch at the very least, but probably a lot lot worse.

The people who keep repeating it want you to be offended they do care and are upset if you're not, it's quite obivious 74 million odd people weren't offended enough to not vote for him the last time, now there either all happy to vote for somone who encouraged somone to commit a sexual assult or there's something more nuanced at play from the people who keep saying it.

True. I am hoping though the admin can see this as an extremely good reason to reverse the decision to ban calling Trump a rapist on that thread though, as they can clearly see now the real world connotations of banning it.

In the interest of feedback (which is meant to be constructive, and not a criticism of the mods) a better way of delivering mod instructions on thread needs to be found.

When the mods themselves acknowledge they don't read entire threads, and don't have time to, it's unreasonable to expect that posters have done so, on the off-chance that there was a mod instruction somewhere earlier in the thread that they might have missed.

If all mod instructions on thread were copied and pasted as bullet points to the first post (with post number), then posters should / would get into the habit of checking the first post regularly for any updated mod instructions and it might prevent some falling foul of them and getting warnings / bans for instructions they weren't aware of.

There is no point telling someone "I issued a mod instruction on post xxxx" when the reader may only be new to a thread and joining 100 posts later, and never saw it.

JMHO.

(edit for clarity) I am referring to mod instructions or directions which apply to every poster on the thread, not those aimed at individuals.

I agree with you.

I got banned for calling Trump 'Artificially Tanned'.

I'm no lawyer but if that ever reached liable court I reckon I would have a chance of winning the case. 😂

My point though is if posters keeping going at each other, it will be deemed more than enough to close down the thread.

A thread which I believe is highlighting some issues and is important in that regard.

It was a civil case with no evidence except from the accuser and no reported crime. It's the correct decision to not allow it.

hard work != good work, you cant and shouldnt equate the two.