[foonathan]

Hey, u/ss99ww. We did not go on a banning spree, we banned only one person, you. After removing the comment we're you insulted someone, I checked your history, noticed that you did not meaningfully participate in r/cpp outside this thread, and decided to remove someone from the community who'd only be there to cause trouble.

(And for the record, we barely removed any comments, just the ones that directly insulted people.)

[bun_terminator]

I participated for r/cpp for a very large number of years, including quite a number of high-impact posts - just not with that account.

And would you be so kind to actually link to the comment you banned me for? This is it, for everyone to see and judge:

https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/1gyiwwc/c_standards_co...

[foonathan]

> I participated for r/cpp for a very large number of years, including quite a number of high-impact posts - just not with that account.

Interesting that you did not choose to voice your opinions using your main accounts on that community then.

> And would you be so kind to actually link to the comment you banned me for? This is it, for everyone to see and judge:

Nah, that was just the comment I used to get to your profile. I banned you for insulting someone.

[bun_terminator]

> Interesting that you did not choose to voice your opinions using your main accounts on that community then.

I'd love to, but reddit and cpp keep banning/suspending accounts - so I can't! Funny how that works isn't it?

> Nah, that was just the comment I used to get to your profile. I banned you for insulting someone.

That is not true. Here is the message:

> Hello, You have been permanently banned from participating in r/cpp because your comment violates this community's rules. You won't be able to post or comment, but you can still view and subscribe to it.

With the link being to https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/1gyiwwc/c_standards_co...

[foonathan]

> That is not true.

I banned you, so I like to think I'm an authority on why you were banned. Here's a step by step timeline of what happened.

1. This comment of yours received a high number of reports and was automatically filtered: https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/1gyiwwc/comment/lyp3jl...

2. I agreed with the reports and removed your comments.

3. I read the rest of the comments in your thread, and noticed your username repeatedly. I wasn't familar with you, so when I reached https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/1gyiwwc/c_standards_co... I clicked on your profile.

4. After noticing your lack of contributions to r/cpp, I decided you are just someone who causes moderation trouble without contributing useful technical insights, so I decided to ban you. That's why the above comment is listed in your ban reason. If you had posted the slur on an account with actual history in r/cpp and no previous removed comments, I would not have banned you.

Edit: 5. Reddit administrators have now removed your comment as well.

[bun_terminator]

> Reddit administrators have now removed your comment as well.

yes of course they have, they banned my entire account. Because that's what reddit does. See my points above

[CRConrad]

> I banned you, so I like to think I'm an authority on why you were banned.

Seems logical... (But when you think about it, it presupposes that you know and admit to yourself your actual motivations.)

FWIW, as a rather occasional redditor and having read through several pages linked from here (including much of that ultra-weird "HOOBY... dogwhistle!" blog post where the whole thing may have originated), to me you're coming off as more of a censorious ban-happy "PC SJW woke" gatekeeper than bun_terminator as a ban-worthy AH. (FWIW, every cent you paid for it.)

[_zagj]

> Interesting that you did not choose to voice your opinions using your main accounts on that community then

Yes, it's interesting that someone opted to use an alternate account to discuss a contentious issue on a platform rife with censorship and deplatforming.

[sqeaky]

Why does it so often seem that the people complaining about censorship are the ones punching down?

Why is it so often someone's right to complain and make problems for others but never concern about people's right to be tolerated when they're being decent humans?

Either people need to be banned who insult others and use slurs and those who maliciously push right up against the rules, or they will bully people out. Look at modern X/Twitter allowing hate speech has pushed out advertisers and something like half of the users?

This is basic Paradox of Tolerance stuff, decent people aren't Banning anyone for pointing out actual arguments like discussing if "question" is okay, asking for extra context if this guy did something else or if this is council overreach. But people complaining about wokeness, DEI, diversity hires, or other technically allowable but obviously hostile nonsense are clearly just trying to attack other people and often in ways that are racist dog whistles. If people insist on being hostile up to the amount allowable by the rules instead of just trying to get along then the rules need to keep changing and adjusting and of course the people who are willfully choosing to be assholes will scream "censorship". Before teaming up with someone complaining about censorship be sure they're actually at risk of censorship and not just trying to use Free Speech as a shield to hurt others.

[gjvc]

This is the toxicity of the left writ large. Well done for illustrating it so well. You make my point for me. Thank you.

[AlexeyBelov]

Can you elaborate? I don't the toxicity in their comment.

EDIT: Just saw your "woke bullshit" comment. And you're the one talking about toxicity? Lol. Lmao, even.

[bun_terminator]

Can't you see how extremist this viewpoint is? Raising issues about DEI and diversity hires is not "obviously hostile nonsense".

[nipah]

> Why does it so often seem that the people complaining about censorship are the ones punching down?

You mean, pushing down and saying people should be banned... like you? [Either people need to be banned who insult others and use slurs and those who maliciously push right up against the rules, or they will bully people out. Look at modern X/Twitter allowing hate speech has pushed out advertisers and something like half of the users?]

The fact is that you are just using the notion of 'paradox of tolerance' as a tool for defending your prefered kind of censorship, in the same mischievous way you say people use the notion of free speech "as a shield to hurt others". Is this or you are not being mischievious, so I think it would be polite to also admit the very probable possibility that those people claiming that their free speech is being violated may also have something to say on the topic, instead of just assuming they are being malicious and that they are "punching down" on others (or similar things).

Don't you think doing that would be more productive?

[dvfjsdhgfv]

> Interesting that you did not choose to voice your opinions using your main accounts on that community then.

This is not "interesting", this is common sense.