Poll to moderate the phrase "Anti-vaxxer" as a violation of the 'clean start' rule

[Natural Citizen]

Self explanatory.

Clearly this is understood to be and meant to be a derogatory term which is universally made applicable to antagonize, offend, intimidate and ridicule those who may be pro-freedom of choice in exercising their right to decide whether to undergo intrusive medical procedures or not to undergo intrusive medical procedures and is in no way intended to initiate, much less stimulate, fruitful, civil discourse.

I'm only talking about the clean start rule here. Initiating discourse specifically. Meaning thread titles and OPs.

You know. ''Equity" with relation to the existing rule itself.


For reference...

"It is wrong to call a person who declines a shot an 'anti-vaxxer,'" states AAPS executive director Jane Orient, M.D. "Virtually no physicians are 'anti-antibiotics' or 'anti-surgery,' whereas all are opposed to treatments that they think are unnecessary, more likely to harm than to benefit an individual patient, or inadequately tested."

AAPS being the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The phrase is fine. Let's leave the crying about terminology to the loons shall we.

PC garbage

 

[Dogmaphobe]

That one does not bother me too much.

When various posters call people a "Trumpster", though, that is certainly derogatory.

It has the same effect of using the term libtard.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The phrase is fine. Let's leave the crying about terminology to the loons shall we.

PC garbage

No, I'm talking about ''equity'' in the existing clean start rule. Seems like it's rather arbitrary as is. Whose favor is that in?

I see quite a few threads closed down over clean start rule violations.

I'm not talking about censoring the phrase itself.

Seems like it's only logical.

Ah well. If you guys wanna just stand there and get punched with your hands force tied behind you back, it's your choice, I suppose.

I was just tossing it out there.

Make no mistake, though, those who throw out such ad-homs in thread titles and OPs love you for it. There's no doubt about it.

 

[Natural Citizen]

That one does not bother me too much.

When various posters call people a "Trumpster", though, that is certainly derogatory.

It has the same effect of using the term libtard.

I think the clean start rule shouldn't be so arbitrary.

It invites vitriol rather than stimulating civil discourse when different political factions are granted the luxury of non-conformity to it. It discourages any kind of meaningful dialogue. Observably. When people toss out that kind of language in an opening thread title/post, they clearly aren't interested in any kind of meaningful dialogue to whatever the actual topical content is supposed to be. It's seems to serve only to purposefully trivialize opposing views wit hregard to the critical issues with which were faced. Where does the interest lie in trivializing it?

As I mentioned to gramps, though, it's just whatevs.

I only threw it out there for everyone else benefit, to be honest. I don't much care for such a low level of discourse. Which is why I'm not around much these days.

Personally, I can deal with those types.

Really, though, you're never going to achieve any kind of fruitful discourse as the existing rule sits and as it is enforced. And it is enforced, there's no doubt about it. Eagerly in some cases.

Alright, then.

Enjoy your evening all. That's pretty much all I have to say about it. It did need to be mentioned, though.

 

[justinacolmena]

The phrase is fine. Let's leave the crying about terminology to the loons shall we.

PC garbage

I am a proud anti-vaxxer.
This far north, there are plenty of mosquitoes to vaccinate us all summer long. You have all the same diseases as every hooker and faggot on the block whether you think you do or not.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The phrase is fine. Let's leave the crying about terminology to the loons shall we.

PC garbage

No, I'm talking about ''equity'' in the existing clean start rule. Seems like it's rather arbitrary as is. Whose favor is that in?

I see quite a few threads closed down over clean start rule violations.

I'm not talking about censoring the phrase itself.

Seems like it's only logical.

Ah well. If you guys wanna just stand there and get punched with your hands force tied behind you back, it's your choice, I suppose.

I was just tossing it out there.

Make no mistake, though, those who throw out such ad-homs in thread titles and OPs love you for it. There's no doubt about it.

I get threads tossed on occasion. Shit happens. Every once in a while I'll report a flame thread for that reason but deep down IDGAF lol

It's all stupid petty bullshit. I get they want the main forum the public sees to be clean and draw in new MONEY but ultimately I don't care

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The only terminology I see slung around as an insult that bothers me is pedophilia. That is as repulsive as it gets. We should have more respect for the child victims of this heinous shit than to casually toss it around as an insult against other posters. Surely out of all the people here someone is a victim of that and invoking it could cause them painful memories.

Fuck that.

 

[justinacolmena]

The only terminology I see slung around as an insult that bothers me is pedophilia. That is as repulsive as it gets

Kids wagging their ass at a gas station for a adult smoke or drink and there's a righteous lynch mob of concerned parents all of a sudden. Good grief.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The only terminology I see slung around as an insult that bothers me is pedophilia. That is as repulsive as it gets

Kids wagging their ass at a gas station for a adult smoke or drink and there's a righteous lynch mob of concerned parents all of a sudden. Good grief.

No idea wtf you're talking about. The children I see in the news are not wagging anything anywhere. We just had a daycare full of toddlers and tiny kids shut down because of this shit. I seriously doubt they were wagging their diapers and pacifiers at the staff.
The fact that you take it so lightly is a reflection on your character or lack thereof

 

[Natural Citizen]

The only terminology I see slung around as an insult that bothers me is pedophilia. That is as repulsive as it gets. We should have more respect for the child victims of this heinous shit than to casually toss it around as an insult against other posters. Surely out of all the people here someone is a victim of that and invoking it could cause them painful memories.

Fuck that.

Yeah, I get all of that, but I'm not talking about it bothering anyone. Not in scope, I'm not.

I'm talking about the rules that dictate the terms of controversy being stacked against you by default. Why would anyone just be okay with that? It's just dumb to participate in a scenario like that.

Meaningful, fruitful discussion with regard to such a critical issue simply cannot be had under those circumstances. And such inequities with regard to an existing rule like that one, to be clear, serve only to ensure that it remains that way.

People who participate in the back and forth spew are never going to change their minds about anything. Your target audience is always the casual passer-by. Or should be. Always. Why on Earth would people want their position trivialized through the use of such ad-hom right out of the gates by rule given that reality? Why would one allow another that luxury by rule? They're literally tying your hands behind you back right out of the gate to the casual observer who may not generally participate but rather only reads. That's crazy. It's stupid, really.

Anyway. That's my final word on it.

Good luck!

 

[justinacolmena]

I seriously doubt they were wagging their diapers and pacifiers at the staff

You've never been around young kids, I take it.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The only terminology I see slung around as an insult that bothers me is pedophilia. That is as repulsive as it gets. We should have more respect for the child victims of this heinous shit than to casually toss it around as an insult against other posters. Surely out of all the people here someone is a victim of that and invoking it could cause them painful memories.

Fuck that.

Yeah, I get all of that, but I'm not talking about it bothering anyone. Not in scope, I'm not.

I'm talking about the rules that dictate the terms of controversy being stacked against you by default. Why would anyone just be okay with that? It's just dumb to participate in a scenario like that.

Meaningful, fruitful discussion wth regard to such a critical issue simply cannot be had under those circumstances. And such inequities with regard to an existing rule like that one, to be clear, serve only to ensure that it remains that way.

Anyway. That's my final word on it.

Good luck!

I get your point but I think expecting critical thought and discussion here is a pipe dream. It does happen but it's rare. We all have figured out the personalities & quirks of each other by now and that's what everyone feeds off of.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I seriously doubt they were wagging their diapers and pacifiers at the staff

You've never been around young kids, I take it.

Omg lol....yep no children ever in my life. No 5 kids or 2 grandkids. No neices of nephews. No step kids..... no interaction at all

LOOK AT MY FUCKING NAME FFS

I think we're done here. I said my piece, you clearly disagree and I'll leave it at that because of where this thread is located

 

[Crepitus]

Self explanatory.

Clearly this is understood to be and meant to be a derogatory term which is universally made applicable to antagonize, offend, intimidate and ridicule those who may be pro-freedom of choice in exercising their right to decide whether to undergo intrusive medical procedures or not to undergo intrusive medical procedures and is in no way intended to initiate, much less stimulate, fruitful, civil discourse.

I'm only talking about the clean start rule here. Initiating discourse specifically. Meaning thread titles and OPs.

You know. ''Equity" with relation to the existing rule itself.


For reference...

"It is wrong to call a person who declines a shot an 'anti-vaxxer,'" states AAPS executive director Jane Orient, M.D. "Virtually no physicians are 'anti-antibiotics' or 'anti-surgery,' whereas all are opposed to treatments that they think are unnecessary, more likely to harm than to benefit an individual patient, or inadequately tested."

AAPS being the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

LMF'nAO!!!!!!

 

[candycorn]

Self explanatory.

Clearly this is understood to be and meant to be a derogatory term which is universally made applicable to antagonize, offend, intimidate and ridicule those who may be pro-freedom of choice in exercising their right to decide whether to undergo intrusive medical procedures or not to undergo intrusive medical procedures and is in no way intended to initiate, much less stimulate, fruitful, civil discourse.

I'm only talking about the clean start rule here. Initiating discourse specifically. Meaning thread titles and OPs.

You know. ''Equity" with relation to the existing rule itself.


For reference...

"It is wrong to call a person who declines a shot an 'anti-vaxxer,'" states AAPS executive director Jane Orient, M.D. "Virtually no physicians are 'anti-antibiotics' or 'anti-surgery,' whereas all are opposed to treatments that they think are unnecessary, more likely to harm than to benefit an individual patient, or inadequately tested."

AAPS being the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

We have a "clean start" rule?

 

[Crepitus]

I am a proud anti-vaxxer.

As bill engvall would say:

 

[justinacolmena]

We have a "clean start" rule?

No guns are banned except for the enforcers of the cut of flesh and the draw of blood throughout the district.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Self explanatory.

Clearly this is understood to be and meant to be a derogatory term which is universally made applicable to antagonize, offend, intimidate and ridicule those who may be pro-freedom of choice in exercising their right to decide whether to undergo intrusive medical procedures or not to undergo intrusive medical procedures and is in no way intended to initiate, much less stimulate, fruitful, civil discourse.

I'm only talking about the clean start rule here. Initiating discourse specifically. Meaning thread titles and OPs.

You know. ''Equity" with relation to the existing rule itself.


For reference...

"It is wrong to call a person who declines a shot an 'anti-vaxxer,'" states AAPS executive director Jane Orient, M.D. "Virtually no physicians are 'anti-antibiotics' or 'anti-surgery,' whereas all are opposed to treatments that they think are unnecessary, more likely to harm than to benefit an individual patient, or inadequately tested."

AAPS being the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

I think there is a valid point, here.

Traditional vaccination is based on sound, proven science. I agree that those who oppose it generally do so based on ignorance and/or crackpottery; and have no problem with the application of a derogatory term like “anti-vaxxer” to them.

This new mRNA treatment is something totally different from traditional vaccination, and I think there is very good reason to be wary of it, to be concerned that its safety and efficacy has not been adequately proven, and to be unwilling to serve as a guinea pig in testing it; especially as a preventative for a hyperbolized disease that poses no genuine credible threat to the overwhelming vast majority of us.

To use the term “anti-vaxxer” against those of us who are skeptical of mRNA is deceptive, in that it groups us together with genuine kooks who oppose traditional, scientifically-proven vaccination.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I am a proud anti-vaxxer.

As bill engvall would say:

View attachment 513988

And heeere's your sign.