Equality of opportunity: everyone who obbeys the rules and tos can post.
Equality of outcome: “I want to push the limits and do things that I have been warned against, but I don’t want to be denied the right to post.” In other words, that the rules should conform to me.
So what do you call it when the rules are claimed to be equal for all, but then people are treated unequally, the rules are suddenly all grey, and some get warned and banned for doing X while others do X and don’t get banned because of ideological reasons, which are then attempted to be concealed under the ‘grey area’ excuse?
It has nothing to do with democracy. It could be that the banned ones are a minority, and that the majority agree that they should be banned, thus the decision was made in spirit of democracy.
Last week I read one of Lyssa’s KT posts and wanted to respond to it by an ILP private message, but I think she can’t open private messages coming from ILP. So I respond by this post.
I was away while the vote was going on. So call it 13 to 10.
I’d just like to say that this was hardly a capricious decision. See rule 3.3 - viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175550
That rule’s been written down and stuck on the top of the Philosophy forum for over 4 years.
It was also not unannounced - Lyssa was explicitly given a warning by PM on the nature and gravity of the matter a couple of months ago, after her first breaches.
You are such a stupid person, aren’t you? They aren’t asking for equality, you dumb fuck, they are making fun of the inner workings of your psychology.
Dumb fuck? What the fuck is this, preschool? Did you just learn new word and your trashy mom thought it was cute instead of smacking it out of you? Preschool level come back here, ladies and gents, get yours while it’s still hot.