I can't wait until our new site is up. The wait is torture! 😩😩😩

submitted by Gigababejfl from self.TruFemcels

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Doll 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Imagine making an ontological analogy completely irrelevant to the topic to justify debating opinions with people in a space that is not designed for debate. This is not a personal matter.

A constraint is not a restraint, and while you are free under your given biology to assert and express your ideas and opinions into a space not made for that purpose, you will deal with the consequences of having your content removed for it's lack of utility in so far as it does not optimize the discussion, nor does it optimize the well-being of participants. The freedom of speech argument is completely dubious insofar as freedom of speech does not entail lack of consequences or inaction to what is said; once you have said it you have already exercised your right to express, but if you are disallowed from participating you are not having your freedom of speech "removed" or "restricted" on the basis of you being male or a 'female with opposing opinions', but instead because these topics, opinions, and "ideas" are have no relevancy to the sub or website on the basis of it's intended purpose.

Just like 'boy scouts' and 'girl scouts' are not inherently restrictive nor misandric/misogynistic - nor speak to the overall utility of the individual or the merit they can supply if they participated. Utility to the sub is gauged by optimization of the content; anything that does not optimize damages the quality of discussion and content, and distresses the members and user distress, and what determines it, is irrelevant to whatever personal opinions of the opposing people are clearly making to encourage debate, it is considered counterproductive, not counterintuitive as you are attempting to make it seem.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

a space that is not designed for debate.

a space not made for that purpose

These claims are both unsupported and without merit. The entire point of creating the ability to reply to typed expressions of thoughts and opinions on a 'page' on the internet is to extend, support, or rebut said thoughts and opinions.

[–]Doll 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Not only are the "sources" for my claims on this very thread and asserted by the creator herself (and myself - a mod); but what you find meaningful (i.e. having merit) is irrelevant to what is actually the case, which is the "sub" not being intended for debate purposes that diminish the quality of the website and distract from it's goal.

You appear lost, my friend. Your bizarre Dunning–Krugerian display is not even relevant to the discussion itself, because not only did you not apprehend or analyze my post, because if you did you would would've known I already covered this very comment in detail, but claiming that an owned webpage must accommodate and support content irrelevant to the sites intended purpose at the expense of quality and optimization for it's members is not only insane, but servers as an active demonstration as to why the site will operate as it will.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You prefer resolution in real life, and we're heading in that direction. Enjoy.