>>12939If you want to continue this discussion, we can probably take it to /ef/.
I do feel like you're misrepresenting my position, though. Which is part of why all this genuinely comes as a bit of a surprise to me. Truth be told, I had originally thought the whole "/pol/ anon" referred to someone else, or was a bit of a meme, along the same line of calling someone a "/leftycuck/" on 8chan. Something that more gets thrown around at random.
That's a fairly large part of my issue with all this, to be quite honest. It seems to come from a lack of understanding. It's the type of thing you could likely pin on just about anyone, unfortunately. It does run right into the "witchhunt" type territory, as had been suggested prior.
I mean, it seems all you have to do is be angry enough to convince others that what you're saying is right, regardless of evidence or statements to the contrary.
Seems a dangerous position to advocate for banning people you decide are bad based, it would appear, on false information.
I'm not going to say it's a "slippery slope" per say, but it does set a bad precedent, and if nothing else, strikes me as a bad principle.
Filtering for wrong reasons is, of course, ultimately fine. That's up to the individual, after all, and isn't a particular removal of their ability to speak or anything like that. No different from blocking someone. But actively seeking to ban people over what is ultimately a difference of opinion isn't the sane, you ask me.
It's ultimately a difference of values, I suppose, so I doubt this'll change anything. But, still, I feel like it needed to be said.
(USER WAS SENT TO THE MOON FOR THIS POST) 