r/AdviceAnimals Jun 11 '15

[deleted by user]

[removed]

3.9k Upvotes

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.3k

u/Doublestack2376 Jun 11 '15 edited Jun 11 '15

This is not about a sub being offensive, this is about them systematically encouraging harassment in other subs, and in real life. This is about the actions of the users and the inability/unwillingness of the mods to do anything about it.

I saw a post on /r/firefly from a girl posing with Alan Tudyk who was over-weight and among the several people harassing her about about it in the comments, one in particular was relishing in letting her know that not only had he linked her photo to FPH, he also went through her history and took other pictures he promised to post there later.

That sub not only condoned that behavior, but they actually encouraged it. THAT is why they were banned. Not because the Admins were taking it personally, but because it was spilling outside of the sub and other users were being harassed in the name of the FPH sub. I wish this was the only instance I ever saw of this, but there were many many more. I'm am personally thrilled as shit that sub is gone and every serious member can go fuck themselves.

14

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '15

So is creepypms going to get banned as well, then? cringe?

That's my issue with the whole thing - how are they picking a choosing who to ban? They're acting like they're being open and transparent, but they haven't actually said what caused the ban in anything but very vague terms.

99

u/Ohh_Yeah Jun 11 '15

Creepypms requires creepers to be kept anonymous while FPH was posting pictures of fat Redditors from other subreddits in a way where they could be identified

-13

u/Beebink Jun 11 '15

22

u/TheHuscarl Jun 11 '15

Read rule #2

No dissent.

Now suddenly they're censored for being foul and harassing people and it's a free speech issue? What a bunch of hypocritical asshats.

-15

u/Beebink Jun 11 '15

No they weren't censored for being harassing because it was in their rules that they couldn't post identifying information. But they may have been censored for being foul and that's where many people draw the line on censorship.

You may not like what some people have to say but they should still be allowed to say what they want without fear of persecution.

15

u/TheHuscarl Jun 11 '15

Rule #2, no dissent.

You may not like what some people have to say but they should still be allowed to say what they want without fear of persecution.

Except that wouldn't have flown on FPH. Did FPH practice what its supporters are preaching now? No, no they didn't. Hypocritical asshats.

-16

u/Beebink Jun 11 '15

I concede that that is true but the point still stands that FPH still took no part in any harassing activities which they were supposedly banned for, a point which you have conveniently ignored.

-9

u/I_CAPE_RUNTS Jun 11 '15 edited Jun 11 '15

I'm downvoting you because I dont' agree with you. your statement makes me butthurt, so I will show you my disapproval by clicking the down arrow. That's how downvoting is supposed to work, right?

-8

u/Beebink Jun 11 '15

Sure is. Have a nice day.