CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › Reporting inappropriate communication

Reporting inappropriate communication

Started by Hannah Ross2 · · 👁 4 views · 2 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Hannah Ross2Sophia Thomas7
Hannah Ross2 Hannah Ross2 NewcomerOP
4 messages
joined Dec 2017
#1 ·
I was explicitly told not to engage with provocations—instead, I should simply report them—so that is exactly what I did. However, since there has been absolutely no response from the moderation side, I find myself wondering if this is actually considered an acceptable form of communication. I chose not to react to the insults, neither the first nor the second time, strictly following that suggestion to just file a report rather than striking back.

The thread is on the US forum, "to figure out who is here," and the problematic posts can be found on page 16:

LaPerLa31 said:..being polite, with somewhat refined manners, can lead me to places that some low-life (who is foaming at the mouth because they think they hit a home run) will never reach.

I have nothing against it—you all just enjoy acting without any decency, good luck with that.

Hannah Ross2 said:That isn't even what the user was talking about, and judging by your reaction, it seems you clearly have an issue with it; the person writes something perfectly fine, yet you immediately start seeing "low-lifes" and trying to mock "us low-lifes."

LaPerLa31 said:😁 🤣
...well, I just assumed you all love screwings in all their various forms, so don't go getting worked up now—that should actually make you happy, 🤣
...if you say so, but it doesn't for me, so where is the problem?! 🍿
Sophia Thomas7 Sophia Thomas7 Active Member
183 messages
joined Aug 2015
#2 ·
In the middle of this debate where guys are claiming that any decent, respectful man couldn't possibly go that hard in bed—which, by the way, a user pointed out was just a vulgar way to frame things—it basically implies that only the bottom-of-the-barrel types can actually perform. And let’s be honest, society usually labels those guys as nothing more than low-class thugs. These posts aren't exactly high literature, either.

It’s not just about what’s on the screen; you have to look at the context behind it.
Hannah Ross2 Hannah Ross2 NewcomerOP
4 messages
joined Dec 2017
#3 ·
Sophia Thomas7 said:In the middle of this debate where guys are claiming that any decent, respectful man couldn't possibly go that hard in bed—which, by the way, a user pointed out was just a vulgar way to frame things—it basically implies that only the bottom-of-the-barrel types can actually perform. And let’s be honest, society usually labels those guys as nothing more than low-class thugs. These posts aren't exactly high literature, either.

It’s not just about what’s on the screen; you have to look at the context behind it.

Look, "decency" and "dignity"—especially when defined by this user’s standards, where you aren't even allowed to speak plainly or describe reality as it is—won't bring a woman to an orgasm so intense she can barely walk or breathe. Neither will long walks in the park or polite conversation (which is what the discussion was actually building toward); what brings that result is raw, vigorous action. That was the entire point of my post.

But even if I were to argue that point, the issue here is how personal this has become. Even if we set aside the offensive language, the user is implying that we all just tear each other apart—something she claims we've admitted to ourselves. In reality, men don't derive pleasure from that, whereas women—speaking generally—actually do enjoy being taken roughly; it's perfectly natural and normal.

Therefore, if we follow her logic to its conclusion, it would be perfectly reasonable to claim that while we don't tear each other apart, she—since she stated she won't tolerate "low-lifes" doing it—would have to rely on sticks, brambles, or other household objects to achieve even a fraction of the effect that we "low-lifes" could provide, assuming she even deserved such an honor.
Of course, we might be wrong if we assume "decent" guys lack that capacity, but she is equally in the wrong for suggesting that any man inclined toward vigorous sex is somehow part of a group of men who act that way with each other. It's all quite subjective.

Because of all this, I believe one should either embrace her rhetoric consistently or reject it entirely; selective application of logic simply doesn't work.

I will add, finally, that I understand moderation is a difficult job and mistakes happen.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads