Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Let's have a hypothetical conversation about a subject that is really starting to piss me the fuck off.

Lets say a guy owns a social media site and he hates a lot of the political ideologies of the posters on the site. He has people attack him for his opinion on subjects on his site.

He doesn't believe in censorship so he let's them run their cockholsters and never gets rid of them because nobody should create their own echo chamber.

Then one day a user goes after the owner of the site personally and tries to get the owner fired from his daytime job. He tries to get the owner censored from his own site and it continues on outside of the board.

How should the owner moderate this situation?

Should he be a cunt/coward and ban the user or censor him?

Should the owner teach him a lesson by doing the same thing to this incredible pussy that wanted to censor the owner of the site?

Does the owner just ignore it and let the cunt continue to run his mouth?

The owner doesn't want to be cum guzzling douchebag like Facebook and Twitter that just censor and ban anyone they disagree with. All viewpoint should be heard not just the ones you agree with.

How would you guys handle a situation like this?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

I'd handle the situation by attacking the user, doxxing them, getting sued, losing, and being given a restraining order.

∞∞∞ wrote:I'd handle the situation by attacking the user, doxxing them, getting sued, losing, and being given a restraining order.

That's super funny but this was a hypothetical question not a real one.

I knew somebody like you would not be able to add anything to the conversation. It's all personal attacks and spin.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:54 am

∞∞∞ wrote:I'd handle the situation by attacking the user, doxxing them, getting sued, losing, and being given a restraining order.

That's super funny but this was a hypothetical question not a real one.

I knew somebody like you would not be able to add anything to the conversation. It's all personal attacks and spin.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

That's why I love you, man - but you knew it was dangerous work when you volunteered.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 9:16 pm Let's have a hypothetical conversation about a subject that is really starting to piss me the fuck off.

Lets say a guy owns a social media site and he hates a lot of the political ideologies of the posters on the site. He has people attack him for his opinion on subjects on his site.

He doesn't believe in censorship so he let's them run their cockholsters and never gets rid of them because nobody should create their own echo chamber.

Then one day a user goes after the owner of the site personally and tries to get the owner fired from his daytime job. He tries to get the owner censored from his own site and it continues on outside of the board.

How should the owner moderate this situation?

Should he be a cunt/coward and ban the user or censor him?

Should the owner teach him a lesson by doing the same thing to this incredible pussy that wanted to censor the owner of the site?

Does the owner just ignore it and let the cunt continue to run his mouth?

The owner doesn't want to be cum guzzling douchebag like Facebook and Twitter that just censor and ban anyone they disagree with. All viewpoint should be heard not just the ones you agree with.

How would you guys handle a situation like this?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

It’s a great question. Love the Wild West. Was always disappointed when users would place people on ignore. However, for the first time ever I started unfriending people on Facebook this spring. It got too toxic and demoralizing to see people you thought were stable and smart turn out to be complete and utter anger emotion dumbasses.

Personal attacks, going after someone off board over words is beyond the pale. Ban those fuckers and be done with them.

houndawg wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:54 am That's super funny but this was a hypothetical question not a real one.

I knew somebody like you would not be able to add anything to the conversation. It's all personal attacks and spin.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

That's why I love you, man - but you knew it was dangerous work when you volunteered.

What did I volunteer for?

This is seriously a hypothetical question and I wanted to know why losers that own Facebook and Twitter feel that they can create echo chambers of hate and people still use their one sided social media.

If I had wanted to use my own case of absolute domination over fatty I would have but their are other threads for that if you want to continue that by all means do! It still makes me laugh at how uninformed you idiots are

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

kalm wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 9:16 pm Let's have a hypothetical conversation about a subject that is really starting to piss me the fuck off.

Lets say a guy owns a social media site and he hates a lot of the political ideologies of the posters on the site. He has people attack him for his opinion on subjects on his site.

He doesn't believe in censorship so he let's them run their cockholsters and never gets rid of them because nobody should create their own echo chamber.

Then one day a user goes after the owner of the site personally and tries to get the owner fired from his daytime job. He tries to get the owner censored from his own site and it continues on outside of the board.

How should the owner moderate this situation?

Should he be a cunt/coward and ban the user or censor him?

Should the owner teach him a lesson by doing the same thing to this incredible pussy that wanted to censor the owner of the site?

Does the owner just ignore it and let the cunt continue to run his mouth?

The owner doesn't want to be cum guzzling douchebag like Facebook and Twitter that just censor and ban anyone they disagree with. All viewpoint should be heard not just the ones you agree with.

How would you guys handle a situation like this?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

It’s a great question. Love the Wild West. Was always disappointed when users would place people on ignore. However, for the first time ever I started unfriending people on Facebook this spring. It got too toxic and demoralizing to see people you thought were stable and smart turn out to be complete and utter anger emotion dumbasses.

Personal attacks, going after someone off board over words is beyond the pale. Ban those fuckers and be done with them.

No, I would never ban anyone for anything, I'm a man. I don't care if it's personal threats that are serious. Let them stand and the writer then must take responsibility for them.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:43 am

kalm wrote:
It’s a great question. Love the Wild West. Was always disappointed when users would place people on ignore. However, for the first time ever I started unfriending people on Facebook this spring. It got too toxic and demoralizing to see people you thought were stable and smart turn out to be complete and utter anger emotion dumbasses.

Personal attacks, going after someone off board over words is beyond the pale. Ban those fuckers and be done with them.

No, I would never ban anyone for anything, I'm a man. I don't care if it's personal threats that are serious. Let them stand and the writer then must take responsibility for them.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Why do you feel it necessary to keep convincing us your a man?

I’d like you regardless. I’m post gender identification like that.

kalm wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:43 am No, I would never ban anyone for anything, I'm a man. I don't care if it's personal threats that are serious. Let them stand and the writer then must take responsibility for them.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Why do you feel it necessary to keep convincing us your a man?

I’d like you regardless. I’m post gender identification like that.

Because I'm a Mike Gundy fan and it's funny

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 9:16 pm Let's have a hypothetical conversation about a subject that is really starting to piss me the fuck off.

Lets say a guy owns a social media site and he hates a lot of the political ideologies of the posters on the site. He has people attack him for his opinion on subjects on his site.

He doesn't believe in censorship so he let's them run their cockholsters and never gets rid of them because nobody should create their own echo chamber.

Then one day a user goes after the owner of the site personally and tries to get the owner fired from his daytime job. He tries to get the owner censored from his own site and it continues on outside of the board.

How should the owner moderate this situation?

Should he be a cunt/coward and ban the user or censor him?

Should the owner teach him a lesson by doing the same thing to this incredible pussy that wanted to censor the owner of the site?

Does the owner just ignore it and let the cunt continue to run his mouth?

The owner doesn't want to be cum guzzling douchebag like Facebook and Twitter that just censor and ban anyone they disagree with. All viewpoint should be heard not just the ones you agree with.

How would you guys handle a situation like this?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Does the owner also attack people? If so, I'd tell them owner to STFU. If they can dish out but not take it, then they need to shut his/her own mouth.

If the owner is having a civil conversation and the other person begins to personally attack him, dox him, slander/libel his/her name then I don't see the problem in banning that individual. Free speech means you also have freedom FROM speech (at least, in my opinion). If someone is harassing you in the aforementioned ways, you are well within your right to censor (block) that individual from your life. You have the freedom to be free from their speech. I don't think that makes you a coward.

I wouldn't stoop to their level. Never forfeit the high ground. If you do, then you can't bitch about it.

You're 100%, absolutely without a doubt correct in that all viewpoints would be heard. ESPECIALLY those you disagree with. But with that viewpoint or the person speaking it becomes violent, overly aggressive and begins to take it out on you personally, it becomes a problem and I think you are well within your right for silencing that negativity.

Disagreements are fine. But going after a person's livelihood b/c they disagree with you is cowardly.


I had a friend of 30 yrs "censor" me and another friend last week simply because of a disagreement that never went got nasty, aggressive, personal, etc... That guy is a coward. He wants his echo chamber.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:41 am

houndawg wrote:



That's why I love you, man - but you knew it was dangerous work when you volunteered.

What did I volunteer for?

This is seriously a hypothetical question and I wanted to know why losers that own Facebook and Twitter feel that they can create echo chambers of hate and people still use their one sided social media.

If I had wanted to use my own case of absolute domination over fatty I would have but their are other threads for that if you want to continue that by all means do! It still makes me laugh at how uninformed you idiots are

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of Facebook/Twitter. There might be a louder group on those sites but I can go to a Republican, Democratic, Socialist, Maoist, Troskyite page or conversation or person and find plenty of people that agree and disagree. Conservatives aren't silenced there. The individual groups are echo chambers.

In the case of Trump tweeting lies and inaccurate information about important issues being fact-checked is something different. Calling out a leader for spreading lies should be something we be doing. Hell, we do it when it's a politician of a different party.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:11 am

kalm wrote:
Why do you feel it necessary to keep convincing us your a man?

I’d like you regardless. I’m post gender identification like that.

Because I'm a Mike Gundy fan and it's funny

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

kalm wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:06 am

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 9:16 pm Let's have a hypothetical conversation about a subject that is really starting to piss me the fuck off.

Lets say a guy owns a social media site and he hates a lot of the political ideologies of the posters on the site. He has people attack him for his opinion on subjects on his site.

He doesn't believe in censorship so he let's them run their cockholsters and never gets rid of them because nobody should create their own echo chamber.

Then one day a user goes after the owner of the site personally and tries to get the owner fired from his daytime job. He tries to get the owner censored from his own site and it continues on outside of the board.

How should the owner moderate this situation?

Should he be a cunt/coward and ban the user or censor him?

Should the owner teach him a lesson by doing the same thing to this incredible pussy that wanted to censor the owner of the site?

Does the owner just ignore it and let the cunt continue to run his mouth?

The owner doesn't want to be cum guzzling douchebag like Facebook and Twitter that just censor and ban anyone they disagree with. All viewpoint should be heard not just the ones you agree with.

How would you guys handle a situation like this?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

It’s a great question. Love the Wild West. Was always disappointed when users would place people on ignore. However, for the first time ever I started unfriending people on Facebook this spring. It got too toxic and demoralizing to see people you thought were stable and smart turn out to be complete and utter anger emotion dumbasses.

Personal attacks, going after someone off board over words is beyond the pale. Ban those fuckers and be done with them.

Putting people on ignore! Like the Ralph era on AGS. If someone got pissy and put me on ignore, I went after him that much harder. Somehow, word always got back to the “ignorer.” Those were the days!

Ivytalk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:13 am

kalm wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:06 am

It’s a great question. Love the Wild West. Was always disappointed when users would place people on ignore. However, for the first time ever I started unfriending people on Facebook this spring. It got too toxic and demoralizing to see people you thought were stable and smart turn out to be complete and utter anger emotion dumbasses.

Personal attacks, going after someone off board over words is beyond the pale. Ban those fuckers and be done with them.

Putting people on ignore! Like the Ralph era on AGS. If someone got pissy and put me on ignore, I went after him that much harder. Somehow, word always got back to the “ignorer.” Those were the days!

Never did get the use of the ignore function. The scroll wheel on the mouse works good enough for me.

Winterborn wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:13 am Putting people on ignore! Like the Ralph era on AGS. If someone got pissy and put me on ignore, I went after him that much harder. Somehow, word always got back to the “ignorer.” Those were the days!

Never did get the use of the ignore function. The scroll wheel on the mouse works good enough for me.

Yeah but you are of above average intelligence. It's always the libs that block people

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:09 am

Winterborn wrote:

Never did get the use of the ignore function. The scroll wheel on the mouse works good enough for me.

Yeah but you are of above average intelligence. It's always the libs that block people

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Are you kidding me???

Compared to the average Bizon, WB is a fricking rocket scientist!

kalm wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:09 am Yeah but you are of above average intelligence. It's always the libs that block people

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Are you kidding me???

Compared to the average Bizon, WB is a fricking rocket scientist!

That was my point, thanks for making it again for me.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

If a guy owns a property of any sort he has the opportunity to do whatever the fuck he wants with his property as long as lawful and so forth. If I want to set up a culture that is more free and open then so be it. If I want to get rid of somebody because they are a fucking cunt and I don't want to hear them run their mouth on my property I can and will get rid of them. Much like a bar owner, a few god damn idiots doesn't get to take everyone else down because they think have a god given right to spew dumb or hateful shit. If they intentionally keep doing it after being asked/warned not to do certain things then fuck em". Beat it.

FB and Twitter are businesses and they damn sure don't have to allow people on their platforms that disregard what their culture is or what they ask for as far as common decency.

I'm banning you on the basic principle of proving my point.

Massive vulvadouches like ODUrazor should be banned. It's not censorship to ban them.

And I've never used the ignore feature, ever.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:13 am If a guy owns a property of any sort he has the opportunity to do whatever the fuck he wants with his property as long as lawful and so forth. If I want to set up a culture that is more free and open then so be it. If I want to get rid of somebody because they are a fucking cunt and I don't want to hear them run their mouth on my property I can and will get rid of them. Much like a bar owner, a few god damn idiots doesn't get to take everyone else down because they think have a god given right to spew dumb or hateful shit. If they intentionally keep doing it after being asked/warned not to do certain things then fuck em". Beat it.

FB and Twitter are businesses and they damn sure don't have to allow people on their platforms that disregard what their culture is or what they ask for as far as common decency.

I'm banning you on the basic principle of proving my point.

And The Godfather has spoken!

Pwns wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:15 am Massive vulvadouches like ODUrazor should be banned. It's not censorship to ban them.

And I've never used the ignore feature, ever.

Him and Opie

kalm wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:22 am

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:13 am If a guy owns a property of any sort he has the opportunity to do whatever the fuck he wants with his property as long as lawful and so forth. If I want to set up a culture that is more free and open then so be it. If I want to get rid of somebody because they are a fucking cunt and I don't want to hear them run their mouth on my property I can and will get rid of them. Much like a bar owner, a few god damn idiots doesn't get to take everyone else down because they think have a god given right to spew dumb or hateful shit. If they intentionally keep doing it after being asked/warned not to do certain things then fuck em". Beat it.

FB and Twitter are businesses and they damn sure don't have to allow people on their platforms that disregard what their culture is or what they ask for as far as common decency.

I'm banning you on the basic principle of proving my point.

And The Godfather has spoken!

Hold it, Ursus wasn't talking about you?

kalm wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 10:11 am

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:09 am Yeah but you are of above average intelligence. It's always the libs that block people

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Are you kidding me???

Compared to the average Bizon, WB is a fricking rocket scientist!

The hypothetical owner should hypothetically ignore it with respect to the hypothetical site. Banning the user would not solve the problem anyway. So no need for the hypothetical owner to deviate from his philosophy of tolerance with respect to views expressed at the site.