https://kbin.social/m/modernmisogyny
I ran across that magazine recently and every post is transphobic af. Does that fit within kbin.social’s code of conduct?
No, fascists (which TERFs are) should not be allowed to fester here.
deleted by creator
One is in a cult and engages in fascism apologia, another is a christian dominionist.
About who you’d expect.
deleted by creator
This article is really not convincing.
like, fuck terfs, fuck the anti-trans movement, but the connection between the anti-trans movement and fascism is framed in this suuuuper abstract way that no meaningful definition of fascism would allow. It kind of just makes fascism sound like “statism.”
There are plenty of terfs (again, fuck terfs) who are not calling for government action, but trying to exclude trans women from feminist spaces on non-governmental levels, arguing for a limiting social or academic definition of feminism or of a woman and holding exclusionary events. Fascism is an incorrect label for that behavior.
Furthermore, to call terfs fascists implies that they are generally for other things fascists are for, like a command economy, which I don’t think is common.
And to be clear, there is an overlap between terfs and fascists, and an even bigger overlap between anti-trans people in general and fascists. We all know the Nazis fucked up a lot of good gender research, but they were never pretending to be feminists.
Nope, terfs are fascists.
… did you link to the wrong article by mistake? that article doesn’t really have anything to do with fascism, except insofar as most fascists also happen to be racists.
I could link articles all day but I have better things to do than entertain (presumably) a cis guy while he plays devils advocate about the people who want my friends thrown in camps not being fascists.
that’s literally the first article you linked to. Do you have a point at all? You can link to articles all day, but only two of them, and only one that argues for your point at all, which I’ve already addressed?
I’m not advocating for terfs or fascists, they’re both villains, but to say they’re the same is like saying the KKK and the muslim brotherhood are the same. Just because they’re both evil and there are some common threads between their ideas doesn’t mean they’re the same. I think we should learn how to talk about the terrible groups out there instead of just equating all of them and dancing around our own ignorance. I’m not advocating them, I’m advocating against them as strongly as I can, and you’re promoting ignorance instead of responding to the one damn point I’ve made.
that’s literally the first article you linked to.
Yeah I thought maybe you would read it this time.
I read it, and responded to it. You’ve been ignoring my response because you don’t have an answer to it. So again. The core argument that terfs are fascists is:
To that end, Butler does a good job of laying out that the anti-trans movement ultimately is about strengthening government oversight — restricting access to medical care and generally seeking to ban LGBTQ+ people from the public sphere, which fits pretty neatly into just about every standard definition of fascism. That includes gender critical feminists, the self-professed “leftist” equivalent of the more extreme right-wing fundamentalists.
Which, again:
- Pretends the entire social-focused aspect of the anti-trans movement doesn’t exist, when it obviously does, and there are obviously many, many terfs focused on non-governmental oppression. The article itself describes governmental forms of oppression, but this does nothing to imply that the anti-trans movement is actually all about focusing on government oppression
- identifies an extremely superficial relationship between two positions as both being statist and therefore being the same. The police state is also about increasing government oversight. A command economy is about increasing government oversight. The founding of the CFPB was about increasing government oversight. Having courts is about increasing government oversight. These are not all forms of fascism.
- fails to describe fascism at all. Fascism is a specific thing with a specific definition, it’s not just the idea of having an active government. Fascism is a form of nationalism with a dictatorial government, a strong military focus, a hard command economy that exists to support the state and the military, expansionist policies, suppression of opposition to the government, denigration of the individual in favor of the collective in the form of the state… Now, the terf movement, overall, is doing some of those things, but the article doesn’t reference any of them.
- fails to establish that most terfs, or the core proponents of the terf movement, or terfs in general, are fascists, let alone that a terf is categorically a type of fascists.
If you have a point, then instead of linking to the same article again or linking article that isn’t about fascism, please make your point.
no have no idea what fascists are and just use it as a scare word to attack people you disagree with - grow up.
So you’re saying Helen Joyce’s claim transgender identity is a plot by Jewish billionaires is just her being a concerned citizen asking questions?
That’s a strange side to be defending, friend who made their account yesterday.
I’m just pointing out that the „fascist“ label got thrown around by people like you so inflationary that it lost every meaning or sense, making you sound similar desperate as those you seek to oppose. What this does have to do with the age of my account here is beyond me, on the other hand I sense a hint of alt tech elitism that fits the picture just right.
“People like me”? You’ll forgive if I don’t follow.
And it has a meaning—that they are being fascists—which it maintains.
It’s fascists’ fault they’re being fascists; not mine for correctly labeling it.
People who claim that they are right because they say so will never cease to fascinate me.
You want me to explain why transphobia is bad and should be opposed?
No.
Fuck out of here.
I’m not explaining why antisemitism is bad either.Funny how this escalated from you thinking that the socialpolitical movement of fascism has anything to do with a subtribe of modern, post–liberal 2nd wave feminists all the way to antisemitism - something, that wasn’t even remotely on the table. if you now manage to stir „racism“ into the mix, you can call it a day.
I don’t think @mishmashenjoyer implied that at all. Like, not even close. On any level.
@ernest You should look into that, how is it allowed?
I’ve already sent him a PM about that user & magazine a while ago. Still waiting and hoping to hear / see something.
Edit: I also think this is kinda disappointing. Kbin immediately defederated from nsfwlemmy over some bullshit allegations that weren’t even true. Meanwhile this and other examples of toxicity remain to fester directly on this instance.
I sent him one a few months ago, and it was gone within a few hours. I think he cares, but is swamped and probably gets a ton of BS.
It needs to be acted on though. We don’t want this to become a nazi bar. I hope he can figure out a way to share the load sometime soon.
Agree, I don’t like defederating, why defederate from instance if you can just block it (There on kbin)
Any time I tried to get someone to check out Reddit, I hated having to preface it with, oh and you’re going to want to block these 30 subs, they’re horrible, and here’s another 100 that are kinda gross, I’ll email you my list…
There’s stuff to block, but there’s stuff that should be banned too. I remember recommending some of the SQL reddits to coworkers just weeks before the jailbait crap hit the national news. It’s up to ernest how he wants to run this place, but I hope we don’t let the bar go too low.
The magazine’s rule #1: NO BIGOTRY omfg I can’t 🤣🤣🤣🤣
“No bigotry against US! TERF is a slur even though we coined it!” Is what they really mean.
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall fight to the death to defend your right to say it.
When you ban people, you tell them to go form an echo chamber where they’ll flourish.
A more intelligent approach is to imitate Daryl Davis, who has convinced hundreds of KKK members to leave the KKK, simply by respectfully talking with them.
You might actually learn a thing or two in the process.
For every Daryl Davis who can successfully talk down 100 Klansmen, you’ll find 100 Black people begging for their lives trying to reason with the Klan in their last moments. For every thought of “I can fix them!” that you may have, you have to weigh that against how many more people you’ll need to fix if you platform their ideas and treat them as something worth “respectfully debating”.
Convincing people to leave hate groups is a great thing to do, but if respectful debate were effective on the large scale, and we have no shortage of people respectfully arguing that hate is a bad thing, why is the far right a bigger threat now than it was ten years ago? Do not tolerate the intolerant, do not debate the undebatable, do not respect the unrespectable.
The “far right” is growing because the left keeps moving further left, and normal people realize they’re now considered conservative.
If you want an echo chamber, go on and kick me out. You reap what you sow.
What insane version of reality are you living in?
Globally the Overton window has shifted drastically right these past few decades.
Not too long ago leftists were holding ceos hostage and fighting armed conflicts, it’s so watered down people think someone like Bernie Sanders is a radical communist when he’s basically centrist.
This talking point is a deliberate strategy of the far-right that has no basis in reality.
The far-right is growing because people like him are allowed platforms to groom people for extremism. And whenever that platform is at risk, they start trying to guilt people by bleating about “censorship” and “free speech” and “echo chambers”.
Just ban him. He will never contribute anything of value. We’re already aware what the opinions of assholes are, we don’t need reminding.
It’s absolutely true. Look at the DNC policy from 20+ years ago, and you’d think it looks like RNC policy of today. Moving leftward is part and parcel of the notion of “Progressive” politics — moving progressively leftward.
The “far right” is growing because the left keeps moving further left, and normal people realize they’re now considered conservative.
I guess there really is no floor for how simple an idea can be when it’s not beholden to reality. Thanks for the example.
Your dumbass hillbilly country does not have a left. Your political spectrum ends pretty close to the center.
Should I be surprised that someone so radically far-left, so as to believe the US has no left, is someone who freely dishes out insults?
You sound like you’ve never argued with fascists online.
They only exist in echo chambers, anyway, and do not debate in good faith. There is nothing similar to what Daryl Davis did except in the most superficial way possible. Go visit /r/conservative and you might actually learn a thing or two.
I was active in r/Conservative, and here I’m the primary contributer to m/Conservative. Hi, nice to meet you. When I’m engaged in arguments involving the word “fascist”, it’s rarely me using that word (unless we’re literally discussing Mussolini), and usually me who’s called that for favoring levelheaded conservative principles. I enjoy mutually respectful debate, but I find most others prefer to fearfully call me a “fascist,” downvote everything I’ve ever written, block me, and walk away feeling sanctimonious.
I was active in r/Conservative, and here I’m the primary contributer to m/Conservative.
This is already a point at which you should go home and rethink your life. Everything else you’ve said only digs the hole deeper.
Yes, everyone whose point of view differs from yours must obviously be inferior to you.
You were active in the biggest alt-right safe space echo chamber in all of reddit? Colour me surprised.
That’s a hilarious turn; my statement was meant to be rhetorical. But you really have never argued with fascists!
And I never said YOU were fascist… but I guess that doesn’t fit with your canned response then, huh?
Fascists haven’t existed since 25 Luglio in 1943. You can find a tiny number of exceptions over the years, but as a broad statement it’s true. I’m not old enough to have argued with fascists, and I bet you’re not either.
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
Yea wow, we’ve never seen that in the last 7 years!
I can see I really triggered you with that word. It’s hilarious that you self-identified with it and got defensive.
It certainly does sound like typical leftists if you squint. Everyone in this thread opposing free speech is an authoritarian. But if you actually read that definition word for word, it’s a position almost nobody supports. What’s more, the definition has been changed from the original political affiliation. I’m not surprised Miriam-Webster’s open to redefining words, but try as they might, words still mean what they originally meant. Still, their definition is close enough to the original to demonstrate my point that there are no fascists left, unless you squint and look at modern leftists.
Ah, right- There are no fascists but if there are it’s the leftists! Thanks for a good laugh today. Don’t ever let facts get in your way, bud.
deleted by creator
You’re confusing that “Voltaire” quote (which wasn’t actually said by him) with the American First Amendment.
The American First Amendment is predicated on America’s cultural basis in the principle of free speech, which is embodied by the quote. The American First Amendment indeed applies only to government, restricting its overreach. But the principle of free speech is one of the core principles of American culture. It goes far deeper than the First Amendment.
If you don’t want to debate with them then don’t subscribe to their magazine, and leave them alone.
How would the first ammendment apply to a Polish website?
It wouldn’t. At all. But the principle of free speech certainly does.
deleted by creator
I find it interesting that, at the heart of our differences, is a disagreement over the nature of the internet itself — whether it’s public or private, more like a town square or more like our own living rooms. If you go back to the '90s, when the Web was nascent, I think technologists would have been surprised to learn that the issue is still so unsettled in 2023. I suppose it’s a tough issue to settle. Ultimately, neither of our traditional notions of “public” and “private” fit it well.
We agree that people who want us dead should not be invited into our living rooms. My position is that by surfing kbin we are putting ourselves in the middle of a town square, and opening ourselves up to any and all perspectives, disagreeable as they may be. As an American, my sentiment is “bring it on.”
The internet is public, go register a domain for hate speech, or “free speech” as some call it.
Websites are private property and do have moderation.This would be true iff signups were by invitation only.
If there’s a Nazi at the table and 10 other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with 11 Nazis.
That misunderstanding is why echo chambers grow. Your fear of being perceived as a Nazi only reveals that you’re overly concerned what other people think of you, which strongly suggests that you’re young and naive. As you grow up, you’ll stop caring what others think of you (hopefully you will — no everyone does), and you’ll learn to respectfully engage in conversation with people of divergent viewpoints (even if they happen to believe their personal level of melanin justifies their superiority complex).
Are you a transgender person?
You just seem so smart and intelligent regarding how a marginalized group should defend itself against attacks on its existence, I was just wondering if—and I know this is ludicrous to even conceive—you turned out to be full of shit, would you bear the consequences of being wrong about how trans people should deal with people who want to murder them or will you be fine regardless?
It’s not at all ludicrous to conceive that I may be wrong on any topic. I enjoy learning something new when I’m disproven. It’s not easy to convince me (or anyone else for that matter) that I’m wrong, but I’m generally open to the possibility.
Maybe you could demonstrate just how darn reasonable you are when you’re shown to be wrong by accepting that you’re not wanted here and leaving.
No, political agitator, I’m not going anywhere. Welcome to the internet, where sometimes people disagree with you.
I have mixed feelings about this
On one hand, Daryl Davis is a hero, and his method actually works to de-radicalize people. I prefer using this method when I encounter bigots irl.
On the other hand, allowing bigoted speech in your online platform has the potential to drive away normal folks and turn your platform into the echo-chamber where bigotry flourishes that you mentioned. This is basically what happened to Voat.
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall fight to the death to defend your right to say it.
I agree with this, but it’s beside the point. This isn’t a public space like a street corner, it’s a managed public/private space like a bar, where the bouncer will kick you out for abusing other patrons.
A group of patrons sitting at a table in a bar, quietly discussing their TERF perspective, is entirely different from one of them walking up to a trans table and picking a fight. The former is an exercise of free speech, whereas the latter is cause for ejection.
They’re not discussing quietly, everyone can hear them, and they want to be heard.
I only know about them because I subscribe to m/kbinMeta. If you stick to your subscribed magazines, as I do, you only hear those to whom you intentionally listen.
No. You don’t have the right to debate other people’s right to exist. Such speech is an act of violence and should be treated as such.
I don’t want a group of people sitting around “discussing” whether or not black people are inherently inferior either. That is not speech we should accept in the public sphere
Have you never heard “sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me”? It’s preschool 101. Speech is never an act of violence.
Additionally, nobody is debating anyone’s right to exist.
Says the person who’s never heard their own right to exist or the rights of their loved ones called into question publicly.
You don’t have the right to “debate” other people’s equal rights.
Except really, nobody’s ever debating anyone’s right to exist. That’s absurd.
Consider this: If a mass murderer was captured and imprisoned, he could claim that the justice system opposes his right to exist. The trouble with that is he’d be completely incorrect. The justice system opposes his behavior of murder. No matter how much he believes his very existence is inextricably bound to his behavior of murder, the reality is he murders by choice, and it is that intentional action which the justice system opposes.
Did you just compare trans people living their lives without hurting anyone to murder?
Except it’s more like a group of patrons at a bar talking about killing a trans person, and than the next day one of them actually does it.
What kind of absurd hyperbole is that? Nobody has called for murder. And certainly nobody has committed a murder based on a call for it.
Speech has real life consequences.
“Known transgender killings increased 93% in that four-year period – from 29 in 2017 to 56 in 2021”
https://abcnews.go.com/US/homicide-rate-trans-people-doubled-gun-killings-fueling/story?id=91348274
“Transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime”
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/
I don’t condone murder under any circumstances. But using 56 murders as an excuse to silence anyone online is a disgrace to the principle of free speech.
The principle of free speech, in America, has nothing to do with forcing people to tolerate hateful rhetoric. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States.
In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is strongly protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, many state constitutions, and state and federal laws. Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government.
As long as the government isn’t arresting you for your opinions then nothing going on here has to do with “free speech”. Individuals and corporations silencing you online is not a “disgrace to the principle of free speech”.
He knows. That’s why he’s desperately trying to hold on to his little platform.
Pick almost any mass shooter at random and look at their online history and you’ll find the same story over and over again; “progressively radicalised by social media”.
They’re absolutely aware these domestic terrorists come from their midst. Find a far-right enough chat room and they openly celebrate it.
Daryl Davis does what he does in one-on-one contexts and other safe environments.
He doesn’t go on extremist internet forums and try to convince a bunch of nutjobs and trolls and violent monsters all at the same time. He would have been downvoted into oblivion where people who are looking for somebody to troll would have found him and antagonized him until he left.
I tried to report this magazine using the “contact” page a while back as it violates the kbin.social terms of service, but I guess as long as it’s only one nutjob posting and all the posts are getting disliked, it isn’t really a priority to remove.
Best not to let it fester
Ugh, and 10A somehow also hasn’t been banned yet (and a quick check to his profile shows that he isn’t just still making bad-faith arguments about “free speech” but is also still spreading xenophobia, fake news about the last election, and so on).
I’m out. Anyone know of a kbin (not lemmy) instance with reasonably good moderation?
Our main problem is that the kbin software doesn’t yet support having multiple admins on an instance. Ernest isn’t really able to handle both improving the code and doing instance-wide moderation, so the latter is neglected.
Your best bet for now would be a smaller instance with an active admin, though the overall problem will persist until the right features get added to the software.
This makes me wonder if adding some temporary restrictions to creating magazines here (based on account age or activity?) would be worth it to potentially help slow down ones like this being made (and to help slow down magazine squatting?).
deleted by creator
I’m not expecting perfection, but there hasn’t even been visible commitment to a strong moderation policy. ernst has as far as I can tell remained mostly silent on the matter, occasionally deflecting to “tools aren’t ready yet”, but also not really committing to what he wants to be done with the tools.
10A is a particularly prolific problematic user, and as a single user (unlike the flood of porn spam) it’s a simple matter to ban him. It should not have been a hard decision to make by now.
Personally, a bit over a month ago, I defined banning 10A (as well as one other individual) as the canary that would let me consider recommending other people come here. I was willing to give it some time, but it hasn’t happened yet. Whether this is an explicit policy of weak moderation, or simply an accidental one thanks to putting it at too low a priority, I don’t know. But I don’t particularly want to be on a site that I don’t feel comfortable recommending other people use. So I’m taking my own (lack of) recommendation for now and going to take a long break from this site.
deleted by creator
EH and grad at least were defederated at some point after I signed up, so that does seem to indicate that Ernest doesn’t want those kinds of users/content on here.
I don’t think your stance is wrong though, and you should do what you need to do. Kbin wasn’t ready for the influx of redditors, and we’re seeing the effects of that now. I’m still hopeful that things will get cleaned up eventually, but we’ll see.
He actually downvoted this thread. lol
And my comment. In a private window I can see that he replied to my comment as well, despite the fact that I blocked him, so blocks are still not working properly apparently.
Blocks are like blinders. They’re not meant to prevent anyone else from doing anything.
Yes, because I support free speech, a foundational value of western civilization.
You support free speech, just not enough to learn what it actually means.
Oh yeah? Educate me, wise old political agitator.
Nah. We both know your ignorance is wilful, not accidental.
No you don’t. If you did you wouldn’t support giving terfs and fascists a platform. They use those platforms to erode and destroy free speech systematically.
The entire point of free speech is to support those with whom we disagree. It means absolutely nothing if you only support the speech of those with whom you agree. You need to be willing to say “Those ideas disgust me, yet I will gladly sacrifice my life in battle to defend the right of anyone to speak them.” That’s free speech.
Freedom of speech means the government can’t suppress your speech. We have this in place to protect everyone from anyone who wants to use government to suppress speech.
The speech you are “supporting” amounts to “Those minorities disgust me, I don’t think they should exist/have rights”. Some TERFers are going to support removing the freedom of speech from Transpeople. You’ll have trouble finding one who will state it directly, I imagine, but transphobes everywhere are working diligently to marginalize trans people, or even incite violence against them.
No private citizen (read: people who host kbin/lemmy servers) is obligated to host/platform/listen to anything. I certainly wouldn’t host TERF opinions if it was my server. I wouldn’t allow it at my dinner table. We must be intolerant of the intolerant to protect those whom the intolerant seek to attack.
It doesn’t mean I think the government should start suppressing TERF views, that’s not their place. This is what freedom of speech means.
No, like several others in this thread you are conflating the principle of the freedom of speech with the US First Amendment. They are not the same thing. The First Amendment was predicated on the principle of the freedom of speech. The principle of the freedom of speech is foundational to western civilization, and is applicable to kbin. The US First Amendment is inapplicable here, as it only applies to the government.
When you support free speech, the specific nature of the speech doesn’t matter. I’m no TERF, or even close, but I’d gladly fight and die to protect their right to say whatever they believe, no matter how repulsive it may be.
No private citizen is obligated to support freedom of speech — legally that’s correct. But for those of us who live in the West, we must fight to uphold western civilization lest it crumble around us. It’s a moral duty, not a legal obligation. And once freedom of speech is abolished, goodbye kbin, and goodbye to all of our ability to express any of our thoughts in any context.
Uh, no, that’s not the point of free speech. The point of free speech is that people can’t be arrested for saying something the government doesn’t like. That’s it. Free speech does not mean that anyone is entitled to a platform, and it never has. It doesn’t mean people have to tolerate shitty beliefs and treat them as equal to any other. It doesn’t mean that you can just say whatever you want wherever you want without being told to get the fuck out. People like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what free speech is and what its purpose is, and as a result you roll out the red carpet for fascists and the like so they can walk all over you.
Like so many other people in this thread, you are conflating the principle of free speech with the US First Amendment. Do they not teach this stuff in Civics Class anymore? The First Amendment is predicated on free speech. Free speech is fundamental to western civilization. The first Amendment is only applicable to government, whereas the principle of free speech is applicable to everyone in western civilization. We must all uphold free speech for all people, lest western civilization collapses.
In a free society, we have the downvote button for content we personally dislike. You’re free to criticize their beliefs, and you’re free to try to change their minds. But as soon as you try to silence anyone, you become an enemy of free society. We must all work to uphold western civilization, while realizing that it most certainly will always provide a platform for people (including ourselves) to explore all manner of ideas freely.
That’s a nice flowery and poetic concept of free speech, but it wasn’t the reason the 1st amendment was made, that was made so that people running for office couldn’t silent their opposition and the people could voice their criticisms without fear of retaliation from the government.
But whatever, fine, I’ll humour you.
If you want to uphold your version of free speech, then don’t give people like fascists (and terfs, which are just fascists with a fake mustache on at this point) a platform. They will actively work to dismantle that free speech, and thus are antithetical to it. No amount of trying to counter their arguments with facts and logic or appealing to their emotions will do anything in a public forum, history has shown that only private intervention has any chance of success at deradicalizing people on an individual basis. If you let the movement gain more visibility and legitimacy by entertaining their views on your platform, then you are helping them destroy free speech, full-stop. They are the true enemies of free society, and if you actually care about it you have to protect it from bad faith actors taking advantage of and manipulating it to erode the rights of others.
In a free society nobody is obligated to give anyone a platform or to entertain insanity. I work to uphold all civilization, not just western, by telling nazis to fuck off. You wouldn’t let a guy flinging his own shit around to get up on stage, and that’s the equivalent of what nazis are, except they actively spread propaganda and recruit other shit flingers, which is a lot easier to do up on a stage where everyone can see them flinging shit, and their shit can reach a lot more people. If you let them in, eventually all that will be left is a bunch of people flinging their shit around, and everyone else will have either left to avoid getting hit, or will have already been covered in it and are now suffering because of that. And it will all be because you wanted to defend to the death that guy’s right to throw shit at people.
And then in the end your “free speech” is nothing but a feces covered nightmare, and the mob of poop tossers moves on to the next stage, their numbers greater than ever. Congratulations.
Then you should actually upvote it to encourage the discussion instead of being the usual bigoted troll.
You can advocate for free speech while downvoting the content of the speech. That’s the whole principle of free speech. It’s not just for the content we upvote; it’s specifically for the content we downvote.
No. The vote buttons are not meant to be used as your personal like & dislike button and you full well know that already too.
You’re talking about old-school reddiquette, which even reddit itself forgot eons ago: upvote well thought-out comments even if you disagree with them. And I actually do that to a degree, even if I dislike the author’s point. But if I think the comment is wrong in some way then I downvote it. That’s not to say I want the author silenced, just that the down button is there to be used sometimes.
Apparently, almost everything (within the law) is allowed until it generates enough controversy to annoy the admin, in which case it is banned regardless of whether it violated the code of conduct or not.
Well, it violates the Kbin terms of service. Therefore it is being bright to the attention of admin.
“We expect all users to treat each other with respect and kindness. Harassment, hate speech, or any other form of harmful behavior will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to remove any content or user that violates these guidelines.”
deleted by creator
