I dunno. I think they're actually in space. But are they actually on their way around the moon?
I'm honestly 50/50 on the original Apollo missions. Who the hell knows. Honestly who even cares. I just want less war and more affordable RAM at this point.
This is a good point. At the same time intent cannot be directly gleaned but only inferred, so it's not that objective. We might say objectively your sarcastic tone in the subject comment means you didn't intend to insult another, but then I infer you did intend to caricature an identifiable collective third party as insulting another, which does attack the collective by implying they use slurs and are illogical. If you were to say for instance "Greenblatt says", you'd be Naming The Jew For Real and wisely moving the criticism from a nebulous collective to a known violator. Perhaps more to the point even though riskier, "Judith Resnik and Ilan Ramon say". (They have been the subject of conspiracy research.)
In my moderation experience I might let your version go as you edited it, because it's isolated, indirect, and self-moderated by repunctuation; but c/Thisisnotanexit makes the calls at the pleasure of admin and the community. The real question is to what degree you want to interact without getting hung up on meta about restoration of the forum's original honor code. I've noticed that virtually everyone claiming "censorship" here has no idea what real censorship is or has been.
This mission is as real as the Apollo show they put on years ago....when they lost all the tech-- 😂🤣😅
I dunno. I think they're actually in space. But are they actually on their way around the moon?
I'm honestly 50/50 on the original Apollo missions. Who the hell knows. Honestly who even cares. I just want less war and more affordable RAM at this point.
I think this is in jest but it's still a rule 1 violation. Can you remove the last word as it's in direct reply to a user?
Lol so now rule 1 is anti-humor. Good job outing it as a censorious redditrule.
No it's not attacking users. Even in jest approving it is a slippy slope, I hope you understand.
Attacking users implies intent. Mabye the real attacks on users was all the censoring someone did along the way....
I understand, you can still be funny without name calling tho.
That edit didn't remove the word, it just changed the o to a 0, which changes nothing for the rule violation.
This is a good point. At the same time intent cannot be directly gleaned but only inferred, so it's not that objective. We might say objectively your sarcastic tone in the subject comment means you didn't intend to insult another, but then I infer you did intend to caricature an identifiable collective third party as insulting another, which does attack the collective by implying they use slurs and are illogical. If you were to say for instance "Greenblatt says", you'd be Naming The Jew For Real and wisely moving the criticism from a nebulous collective to a known violator. Perhaps more to the point even though riskier, "Judith Resnik and Ilan Ramon say". (They have been the subject of conspiracy research.)
In my moderation experience I might let your version go as you edited it, because it's isolated, indirect, and self-moderated by repunctuation; but c/Thisisnotanexit makes the calls at the pleasure of admin and the community. The real question is to what degree you want to interact without getting hung up on meta about restoration of the forum's original honor code. I've noticed that virtually everyone claiming "censorship" here has no idea what real censorship is or has been.
Comment removed for rule 1 and was not edited for approval after over a day with other action elsewhere.
Argument?
u/hootersmcboobies
String acts bizarre and unnatural throughout video, watch it carefully. Sudden gusts of energy from nowhere. Typical ACTORNAUT CGI prop
Fuk these lying scum and their fakeass tee-hee smiles