Welcome to Sneerclub, where we treat you like an actual human being instead of a faulty computer program who won't suck their glorious philosopher king cocks.
Source: I was the human who helped propagate Kathy's note along with my own allegations, and got completely ignored while Kathy was reduced to the madwoman in the attic.
It seems that your comment contains 1 or more links that are hard to tap for mobile users.
I will extend those so they're easier for our sausage fingers to click!
[Here is link number 1](http://halliejones.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Baudrillard-The-Gulf-War-did-not-Take-Place.pdf) - Previous text "mfw"
----
^Please ^PM ^/u/eganwall ^with ^issues ^or ^feedback! ^| ^[Delete](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=FatFingerHelperBot&subject=delete&message=delete%20e5ybq92)
Per [the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/91th1q/new_rules_for_sneers/e30lkqr/) NSFW tags are reserved for high effort meta-posts. But yea, I can see why this should be tagged NSFW, or TW:Rape, sexual assault, etc.
Good rule to follow in future, maybe I'll bung it in somewhere if I can find a good place to put it. On the other hand, to respond to /u/TooRonJoe, it's hard to move on this subreddit without finding a link to potentially traumatic content - including (lots and lots and lots of, oh my god so much) sexual assault apologia - but as you point out in the following comment, those descriptions were exceptionally graphic, so we should have a rule somewhere in place to handle these exceptional posts.
/u/queerbees?
Okay. I was thinking about this last night. But I was too stoned to respond.
My thinking is this: I am totally on board if people desire to see or want to put TWs or other special notices on links. BUT! There is a caveat: We are a "low energy," low traffic, low moderation-effort subreddit. And because of that, I don't know how on top of it we can be in enforcing such a TW rule. (See my consistently sporadic efforts to enforce the three rules already.) We can do our best, and maybe people could use the "report" function if they see something in serious need of rule enforcement.
Anyways, I think that such a thing can be implemented through post-flairs, though I myself have no idea how to make that work.
I want to thank /u/Hailanathema for being the only person (that I can recall) who notes that I made rules. I am very proud of being a rule maker. Though, I want to say that I did not mean for NSFW to be exclusively for meta-posts, just mandatory for meta-posts. (Meta-posts, are to my sensibilities, very not safe for work.)
To /u/TooRonJoe, would flair warnings be desirable? I presume you're not the only one who'd like this change, and I'd be happy to include it in a new rule. (In fact, my original intention with the NSFW rule for meta-posts was precisely because our subreddit hosted some rather serious discussions on sexual violence, and I wanted the NSFW red to be present as an indication of the seriousness of such content.)
Exactly!
Everyone who's says, "I don't like (insert\_falsehood\_propagating\_asshole\_here), but censorship is not the answer" should be at least be philosophically consistent with their definition of censorship by turning off their spam filter, and evaluating the merits of a deluge of penis-enhancement and foreign-prince-needs-your-help emails from first principles in-depth! When trying to treat migraines, they should weigh the positions of a psychic or a phrenologist equally with that of a neurologist!
I feel like that subreddit has been getting a bit better lately. You
still see a lot of far right nonsense like “maybe putting muslims in
internment camps is a good idea,” but at least people are downvoting the
worst posts and making rebuttals. I think in the past it was more of an
echo chamber.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/ssc using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/ssc/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Biology Part-1 solved paper SSC CGL 2017 | Important for all SSC/ UPSC/ Biology related GK question paper of ssc cgl 2017,in Hindi and English, Biology ssc 2017,science ssc 2017](https://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=LU0KsQVcWpI&u=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DpXGTgMs4cuE%26feature%3Dshare) | [1 comment](https://np.reddit.com/r/ssc/comments/80cyrm/biology_part1_solved_paper_ssc_cgl_2017_important/)
\#2: [SSC CHSL 2016-17 Sentence improvement with solution](http://www.luckyexam.com/home/ssc-english-previous-year-paper-topic-wise-chapter-wise/ssc-chsl-2016-17-sentence-improvement-with-solution) | [1 comment](https://np.reddit.com/r/ssc/comments/7tz6bx/ssc_chsl_201617_sentence_improvement_with_solution/)
\#3: [Online Coaching Institute in Delhi | SSC Coacghing in Rohini](http://www.teachwell.co.in/2018/01/02/benefits-of-online-course/) | [0 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ssc/comments/7qd6ow/online_coaching_institute_in_delhi_ssc_coacghing/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/8wfgsm/blacklist/)
Your initial post was low effort and provided no context, no matter
how obvious you think it is. The context you provided here is actually
useful though and now I understand why you made your original post.
Context is useful.
Castigating low effort posts to own the…decent human beings?
I made that response. It is sincere. I legitimately had no idea who this guy is and what his books are. /u/-LVP-'s long detailed response provided me with the info that put everything into context. It did exactly what it should have done: given me enough info to have a better opinion. The author sounds like a POS and it seems reasonable that Amazon choose not to sell his books due to their content.
Why does everyone here assume that all of the people in /r/SSC are acting in bad faith? Obviously some are. You get to know them though and just treat their comments with less respect. This sub is also good for pointing them out without needing to dig through the CW thread all the time (e.g. I got lots of background about TrannyPorn0, Namrock, and a few other less savory folks from this sub).
Because half of my degree was in literature and I know how to read tone in text. Your post came off as castigating the /u/-LVP- for providing insufficient context for their claim when you could have done *extremely fucking basic research* yourself. I mean it's all laid out there on google, why would you upbraid somebody for providing insufficient context for the phrase "rape manual" when you could have literally googled it for yourself.
Even if it isn't "bad faith" (a very poorly defined and overused term) it's certainly hubristic arrogance to challenge somebody over their "low-effort" in such a low-effort post as your own, wanker.
dedicating_ruckus is a relative newcomer to the subreddit, but from
what I’ve seen (I stopped actually visiting the sub a while ago, thanks
u/Epistaxis for convincing me!), they’re becoming a strong contender for
the user with the most shitty opinions and bad faith tactics. Going by
that measure alone, maybe they’re an alt of TPO? Hm.
Seriously though, good on /u/-LVP- for calling them on their bullshit rape apologia.
Steelmannng rape to own the libs.
[deleted]
I feel like that subreddit has been getting a bit better lately. You still see a lot of far right nonsense like “maybe putting muslims in internment camps is a good idea,” but at least people are downvoting the worst posts and making rebuttals. I think in the past it was more of an echo chamber.
Castigating low effort posts to own the…decent human beings?
dedicating_ruckus is a relative newcomer to the subreddit, but from what I’ve seen (I stopped actually visiting the sub a while ago, thanks u/Epistaxis for convincing me!), they’re becoming a strong contender for the user with the most shitty opinions and bad faith tactics. Going by that measure alone, maybe they’re an alt of TPO? Hm.
Nicely done, good sneer
fucking greyenlightenment, holy shit