use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. subreddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
subreddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
advanced search: by author, sub...
~9 users here now
Terrorist killed and hostages rescued in Texas synagogue standoff
submitted 2 years ago by AXXA from archive.is
view the rest of the comments →
[–]Markimus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (5 children)
So why not put an automod filter for no-no words?
Which words am I allowed to respond to someone who insults me? When people make unsubstantiated, completely nonsensical attacks on your character it clearly shows a lack of intelligence so retard seems quite fitting in my opinion. If that's just too scary for you would you prefer moron? Idiot? Which word should I have used to not upset the jannies? Or am I supposed to just let people insult me willy nilly and never respond to it because the admins have arbitrarily decided to take a specific side?
[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (4 children)
No ad hominems against your fellow saidittors are allowed https://saidit.net/s/SaidIt/comments/j1/the_saiditnet_terms_and_content_policy/
[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (3 children)
Ad hominem means "You're wrong because you're retarded", "You're wrong because you're racist" or "You're wrong because you're white male" or "You're wrong because you're X".
Statement like "[insert an actual argument here], retard" is not an ad hominem.
Original comment is much closer to ad hominem than Markimus' response.
[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (2 children)
What about this one?
The hell are you talking about retard?
[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (1 child)
Could let admins edit posts, then offensive words could simply be removed, preserve the overall content, and avoid conflict. Of course there's the danger an admin could simply start destroying content either en masse, subversively throughout the years, or simply through good intentions.
Admin edits would obviously have to be marked too.
[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (0 children)
That sounds like a quick path to a Spez nation. But I do like the idea that admins should re-post whatever they remove with the offending section removed.
But this is all squeezing blood out of a turnip.
view the rest of the comments →
[–]Markimus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (5 children)
[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun - (4 children)
[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (3 children)
[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (2 children)
[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (1 child)
[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)