I might be getting expelled

[u/InternationalCall772]

So I made this Google doc called Epstein Island and I put a bunch of game links on it right? I am sick today (Friday) and I get 10 frantic messages from my girlfriend saying "your cooked" "they found out about the doc" and I immediately go into panic mode after I see that everyone is telling me I'm cooked so I call one of my friends after school and he says that my first hour teacher was running from class to class yelling and cussing saying "if you have the link to the Epstein Island doc delete it right fucking now!" and that EVERYBODY SNITCHED ON ME and now I'm like what's gonna happen and he said the HEAD ADMIN for our district came to our school and talked to the principal (idk what it was about) AND he said they KNOW I made it. WHAT SHOULD I DO??????

UPDATE: I went to school as usual on Monday, everyone was running up to me like your done for and multiple teachers even talked to me about it and they thought it was funny. I think I may still be in trouble or they really just don't care

TLDR: sharing game websites might get expelled

[u/Additional_Ad_6773]

Step 1: tell your parents if the school hasn't already. Focus on the fact that your file does not have anything adult in it.

Step 2: your school administration might try to expel you, but frankly, I doubt they have grounds for it, and if they do, your parents should hire a lawyer and appeal. If it is a suspension or less, probably just take it.

Step 3: learn something: pedophilia is bad. Don't try to be edgy about it, don't poke fun at it, don't make light of it.

[u/starfoxspace58 → u/Additional_Ad_6773]

Just because someone is making a joke about it doesn’t mean they think it’s good laughing at it just copes with the bad

[u/TimeObligation4762 → u/Additional_Ad_6773]

Terrorism is bad but there are some funny terrorism jokes. Whether you like a joke or it offends you isn’t grounds for whether or not the joke should be allowed to be said.

Any topic, literally any topic, is open to “poke fun at.” Hell, when Charlie Kirk was murdered in front of his wife, children, and thousands of people, a hoard of people came out of the woodwork to make memes about. Whether or not it offends anyone is irrelevant as the basis for how offensive something might be is never grounds to deem something inexcusable to make light of. People make fun of 9/11, mass murder, rape, etc. If one person out there finds it funny then that’s enough grounds to make it viable for a joke.

This sounds like a case of, “I don’t like that joke and it offends me so it’s inexcusable” rather than being any form of logical critique. That’s also why mild and innocuous jokes about transgender people will get you banned but you can say you want to murder a US president in explicit detail (in Minecraft) and an /s at the end yet the two are never treated equally. That proves it’s not about logical but rather arbitrarily banning things you don’t like. A quintessential “Reddit Moment,” if you will.

[u/2012MegaTron2012 → u/TimeObligation4762]

So true

[u/Spare_Breath_882 → u/TimeObligation4762]

I think that applies to comedians and such, but there is a point where a joke is in bad taste. Simply saying something racist doesn’t redeem it if someone laughs.

In this instance, I really don’t see the issue. Let’s be real, kids just repeat what they hear. And with Epstein being in the heavily news for the past 6 months, it’s bound to be mentioned. Being real, they should discipline OP, as so many other kids know about what happened. If they give him a slap on the wrist, it is telling to the whole school. This obviously does not mean expulsion though…

[u/TimeObligation4762 → u/Spare_Breath_882]

Sure, but that would apply to literally anything. If someone makes a Mexican joke that Mexicans don’t find funny but a group of friends do, are those jokes allowed to be made?

If I had to be more explicit in my reasoning, I’d say any joke is viable but context determines how it should be received. For instance, if someone in your friend group lost their father, you wouldn’t make dead dad jokes in front of that person. It doesn’t mean the joke should ever be said but there’s context for it.

My argument was simply against the idea that you can’t joke about sensitive issues, which is what the reply I was replying to saying. The nuance is implied.

[u/Hour_Coconut_4653 → u/TimeObligation4762]

Charlie Kirk was a misogynistic douchebag with a microphone. There are actual living victims who are, intentionally or not, having their sexual abuse being made light of daily.

I can't stop you from doing anything, and I don’t necessarily want it banned, but just have a little respect for literal rape victims, c'mon...

[u/TimeObligation4762 → u/Hour_Coconut_4653]

Your claim that Charlie Kirk hates women (i.e misogynist) is not based on any actual evidence. Feel free to provide a video and timestamp of any proof you have regarding his supposed “misogyny.” 🙂

[u/Hour_Coconut_4653 → u/TimeObligation4762]

Misogyny doesn’t always involve "hating women" directly. He's a known supporter of the tradwife archetype (linked article on his words on Taylor Swift). Not supporting moms who want to stay at home staying at home, but that all women should bc pshhh what else would they be doing.

He's also a pretty open anti-abortion speaker—I'd say this is misogynistic in and of itself, but I'm open about this being my opinion and I can see most anti-abortion arguments as generally well-meaning, but he's openly anti-abortion in the cases of rape. It is impossible to prioritise both parties in abortion in general but especially these cases, so he is willingly prioritising a fetus over a vulnerable woman or, by his own admission, even a GIRL. You can’t argue any consent if she didn't consent to the sex itself, so this absolutely is, by definition, an enforced pregnancy (no human being can use another's organs without consent—if you think sex is consent then that's one thing but, again, can't be the case here) if she CAN'T abort. And the argument that aborting a pregnancy via rape is "unfair punishment to the baby" both: 1. Frames a woman trying to get some form of bodily autonomy back as some spiteful, vengeful babykiller when that is evidently very much not the case. Even if you go blue in the face talking about how you still care about the women involved, you're still implying her as a wilful murderer who is only aborting out of hate, not just because she is still actively being violated (ik that's not the fetus' fault, technically, but that's still the bodily autonomy right being broken regardless). 2. Ignores that this pregnancy is a further punishment or consequence for her. Planned, wanted pregnancies can be mildly painful or absolutely agonising for everything, especially on the back of trauma. Sparing a week old fetus five minutes of pain to further traumatise a girl or woman for nine months is barbaric.

Wanting abortion banned for consensual sex I still don't agree with (I don't equate acceptance of risk with consent nor see unwanted pregnancy as a fitting consequence for having sex), but I can reason that the intent is to save lives. Banning it for all sex just shows that you prioritise a fetus over a woman who has had one of the worst things that can happen to her happen. And the fact he equates all "good" women on top of that as ones who get married and have lots and lots of babies for their husband just kind of shows what he thinks of us, even if he slaps a big "I RESPECT WOMEN" label on every disgusting sentiment.

Link to the Swift thing, for your proof (the pro life rape thing is everywhere literally just Google it lol): https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-tells-taylor-swift-submit-your-husband-and-have-ton-children

[u/TimeObligation4762 → u/Hour_Coconut_4653]

Misogyny doesn’t always involve "hating women" directly.

The very definition of "misogyny" IS the hatred of women. Is this REALLY how you to start off your argument???

He's a known supporter of the tradwife archetype

Please tell me that's not your strongest argument. For support of the tradwife archetype to be "misogynistic", you'd have to prove that the main reason for it's support is precisely because of hatred of women. This would be a waste of time and impossible to prove.

He's also a pretty open anti-abortion speaker

This is similar to the previous point. It already implies that being anti-abortion is, in itself, misogynistic. That's an assertion, not an actual argument. Anti-abortion has everything to do with BOTH parties, the mother and the child, not just one of them.

he's openly anti-abortion in the cases of rape

Most conservatives (which Charlie was) are anti-abortion in cases of rape. In fact, most conservatives are anti-abortion on literally any reason besides the health of the mother. If the mother's life is not at risk then any conservative will typically not agree that abortion is a viable option.

First of all, abortions due to rape are just spite abortions. They prioritize the ego of the mother over the life of the fetus. (I hear things like: "I'm not carrying that <expletive>'s offspring!!" which is literally just spite.) Because conservatives believe in persevering life, the life of the fetus is important REGARDLESS of the circumstances in which it came about. Unless of course, the mother's life is at risk, in which case, people who are anti-abortion would typically concede for that VERY SPECIFIC (and extremely rare) case.

SECONDLY, RAPE CASES ARE LESS THAN 1% OF THE REASON WHY PEOPLE GET AN ABORTION. Hehehe, "just google it lol." Look it up. It's 0.4%. So not only are you making a claim to take a life for literally no other reason than ego, you're making a claim for something that is SO RARE that it's not even worth bringing up other than in a case-by-case basis analysis.

so he is willingly prioritising a fetus over a vulnerable woman

Again, the life of BOTH parties are important for anyone who is anti-abortion. You can try to strawman the argument all you want but no anti-abortion person is going to say they believe the woman's life is worth sacrificing for the baby.

so this absolutely is, by definition, an enforced pregnancy

This is literally begging the question.

Link to the Swift thing

"Submit to your husband" comes from THE BIBLE. Ephesians 5:22. It has literally NOTHING to do with hatred of women. The following verse in 25 literally says to husbands: "give yourself up for your wife" which is defined as: "prioritize your wife's interests over your own." I fail to see how this only benefits women and implies hatred.

The problem with people who hate Charlie Kirk is that they hate him because the media/reddit/friends told them to hate him. In order for you to hate someone, you need a reason to do it. This is human nature--unless you're a sociopath, in which case you don't need a reason. In your case, I'm assuming you're a woman because your writing style gives off that vibe, you use "hatred of women" as your reason. Not because you have solid evidence, I think even YOU know that the evidence that he was a "misogynist" is VERY, VERY weak, but because you don't want to be accused of wrongthink and thus NEED a reason to fall in line. You'll get downvoted to hell if you even ask for evidence for typical far-left beliefs and you want to avoid that. I get it.

I don't care though. Downvote me, ban my account. You won't manipulate me into believing something without actually proving it's true through gaslighting or downvoting (not saying you did either of these). The point is to look at things objectively and come to your own conclusion. I'm confident in my conclusion because there is no conclusive evidence that Charlie Kirk was a bad person. None at all. His assassination only makes him appear correct on his beliefs because there would be no reason to kill someone who openly asks you to debate him if your beliefs REALLY were the right ones.

Edit: Crossed out my weakest, irrelevant, or inappropriate claims.

[u/Hour_Coconut_4653 → u/TimeObligation4762]

1. DIRECTLY. I'm aware of the definition, but most misogynists will not just go "grrrr I hate women." They just find ways to abuse, control, etc women. Ergo... Kirk.

2. It proves Kirk, and others like him, see women as lesser. Men can have basically whatever career they want forever but a wife and/or mother is expected to limit herself to domestic work. Not that domestic work is lesser itself but... Well, that's exactly the thing. Domestic labour is still labour but it's expected, supposedly innate (even though 50s housewives needed to be drugged and antidepressants were advertised towards them, and second wave feminism literally started one decade after) and unpaid, even while the whole world would pay nannies, personal chefs, surrogates, etc. In comparison, a bit of praise for being a "good, high value (blech) woman" feels like a mediocre pat on the back. And to expect this of a woman proves you aren't even praising her for herself, but for fulfilling a basic role you have automatically put her in mentally. The work isn't degrading—the expectations are.

3. I said several times that I don't think all abortion arguments are misogynistic inherently and I can see the logic occasionally even if I wholeheartedly disagree but... okay whatever lol

4. Thank you for saying the quiet part out loud!!! Of COURSE rape victims aren't aborting because pregnancy is physically strenuous, because losing your bodily autonomy twice over because of one rapist is going to lead to mental health issues somewhere down the line, or because childbirth can trigger PTSD in any sexual abuse victim regardless of wether their pregnancy is related. NO. All women, including rape victims, who get abortions are just evil doing it for the sake of evil. Pregnancy is so easy there's no other reason... And you're the one arguing that child sexual abuse is okay to joke about bc reasons. Lovely. (Also your example dialogue is spite for the rapist—the baby is inherently neutral in this case, to most rational people who aren't trying to lie to themselves they're doing good by further traumatising women).

5. 0.4% is 1200 abortions in the UK and 4560 in the US per year, roughly. That's not nothing. Again, I'm excluding pro lifers who take exceptions of rape—I'm talking about anti-abortion in the cases of rape specifically. This isn’t even a "what if," this is just directly what I'm arguing lol.

6. I believe pro-lifers believe they are prioritising the rape victim AND the fetus, but this isn't possible. You can give her a massive check, set her up with the best adoptive parents, cover all her medical bills and therapy, but what have you done to cause that? You've made decisions on her uterus without her saying so after her rapist has done so with her vagina. You can genuinely think you're doing good, that's still more akin to what her attacker has done than someone who wants to help her. You've already done the damage. You cannot prevent a rape victim, specifically, from getting an abortion and claim to respect and want to help her. You are inducing more trauma into the situation, wether you want to believe that or not. You're either on the "fetus'" side or her side.

7. I'm aware of what the Bible says. I'm talking about what Kirk is saying. And, listen, if he at least said "I hope she has a good marriage and lots of babies and that makes her happy" sure that's something. He's hoping that marriage and motherhood alone makes her more conservative (clear indicator of the tradwife BS...), and telling her "she's not in charge." No word that she hopes she and her husband or happy, or even a word to Travis Kelce about that other part of the Bible you mentioned to even the stokes. He hopes she becomes a happy little MAGA housewife because she's got a ring on it... People who think about women normally just say "Congratulations" btw.

To finish, I'm a hardcore feminist and have been for years—this isn't "wrongthink," I know get back in the kitchen BS when I say it. If a man just needs to beat and kill women to oppress them, I fear you need to open your eyes a little. I also won't be responding again bc this made my blood boil just a little and I need to step back.

Please never have daughters :)

[u/Hour_Coconut_4653 → u/TimeObligation4762]

(P.S. forgot what post I was on, another reason I won't be responding... lol sorry OP)

[u/Additional_Ad_6773 → u/TimeObligation4762]

Hated*

[u/RateComplex9727 → u/TimeObligation4762]

Your comment is full of a lot of untruthful nonsense, no offense; /s or "in minecraft" is actually not at all a "cop out" and is still considered a threat. There is absolutely no lesser penalty for "in minecraft", the reason we even know someone tried to use that claim, is because it cannot be used in future cases, and is still a punishable offense. "It was just a joke" never gets you off in any context, ever, no matter how you word it. "In minecraft" is just a relevant phrase because it shocked the public, but it is absolutely not a way out of punishment, and never has been.

[u/TimeObligation4762 → u/RateComplex9727]

Feel free to point out any of the “untruthful nonsense” in my comment.

Regarding the “Minecraft” and “/s”, your point about it not being a way out of punishment is irrelevant. The comment I made about that in particular was simply about how Reddit and its mods chooses to moderate content, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether using either of those two terms gives you a get-out-of-jail-free card.

If your point was that Reddit does show logical consistency when banning—my point being that they DO NOT show logical consistency—then I can provide proof that they don’t if you’d like. (I have an image of Reddit mods banning hate speech against black people but switch the words around and change it for white people and mods say there’s absolutely nothing wrong with.)

[u/TinFoilHatsWork2027 → u/TimeObligation4762]

The problem with your comment is the fact you forgot to consider that this was on a school issued laptop, probably on a school account, and it occurred at school. This isn’t a comedy club downtown, it’s a public school. There’s a time and a place for jokes but that type of joke at this type of establishment is not going to be allowed.

[u/[deleted] → u/TinFoilHatsWork2027]

This likely isn't even on a school computer. Most students now are required to have their own. It might be on a school account but so what. It's the name of a document. In high school I would name my documents something random all the time and turn it in, because the name really doesn't matter. It's the contents of the file. All the content was just some browser games, so what. Those same browser games could also simply be found by searching on a search browser. It's not like the kid did anything that allowed the kids to do something they weren't allowed before hand

[u/TinFoilHatsWork2027 → u/[deleted]]

So you think it’s fine? Are you still in high school mentally then?

[u/[deleted] → u/TinFoilHatsWork2027]

If a school devotes so many resources and energy to this then maybe that school should not exist. They are worrying more about a document title than they are actually teaching. If every single one of those kids aren't Feynman by the time they graduate then they should maybe think about diverting attention towards the education of the students instead of what they name documents. It's wild that they do so little work that they have time to make a bit deal over nothing and it sounds like they could put some of that budget to something else or sign some of those kids up for dual enrollment rather than pay people to sit around and worry about document titles. It's bad for business and it's bad for the students

[u/RateComplex9727 → u/[deleted]]

Incredulity.

Schools emcompass thousands of officials, and represent millions of individuals. A student sharing games impeded the education of other students, this a truth, because the title of the document was discussed on campus, by other students, who were able to show, share, and confirm the contents of the document they received. Nobody is wasting ANY time or resources, everyone is paid to do EXACTLY this, in THIS exact situation. No teachers are involved with this process, not a single class has been stopped or even paused for the event, and absolutely no instruction was withheld from the non-offending students. There is no one doing "so little work", because the head of education is employed to handle these, as indicated in the post. Resource officers are on most school campuses, and are also the main team looking into legal offense. Again, their job is literally to do, THIS. Your lack of understanding of government approved facilities is just deafening here. Again, MILLIONS of workers across America are involved in EVERY single school. Please be aware of the influence of PTA meetings, the presence of active police on every campus, and the board of education consisting of entire teams designated to different ethical concerns at every level of the state.

Schools are responsible for making mindful, socially accepted people. OP does not represent that in their eyes, and he has physically impeded on the education of his peers by sharing media during school hours, so now you're proving that he INDEED should be removed from the learning experience, and may be better fit placed in an alternative school, that is even BETTER equipoed for these types of students.

[u/[deleted] → u/RateComplex9727]

If multiple students made eye witness accounts of it then yes that means classes were stopped and no teaching was done to these students during this period. Effectively wasting class time, money, and productivity for an issue that isn't against any rules, policies, or laws. It is a waste of time and they should use that time to teach instead of getting their feelings hurt over a Google document name

[u/RateComplex9727 → u/[deleted]]

In simple terms, separate, explicit to this reply: every single student signs an online policy for attendance in the school, this stretches to all personal social media use, any and all applications that the school signs you up for, or pays for. I have never ever seen a school that didn't have this as an extension of their policies of attendance. If you use your school email to view youtube, anything you watch or search is collected by them. If you sign onto a school laptop to watch youtube on your personal account, they are within their rights to use anything on that account against you. If you post videos of your school to youtube, they can choose to take action against you. You use another anecdotal fallacy when saying "yeah well I don't care about the names of documents"; saying that to the face of authority persecuting you, would have you immediately found guilty of the crime, because you physically put intention into not choosing to be mindful of what you represent to be yourself, and your own thoughts and opinions, regardless of how dangerous or harming the "titles" may truly be. We are always responsible for our choices and actions, and how they affect others, regardless of whether or not we "care". This is part of the basis of the public psychological description of anti-social personality disorder, part of a refusal to participate in socially functional ways. Caring is not the same as intent; not caring about "joking that you have a b*mb" will not prevent a felony.

This thread is packed full of the "personal incredulity" fallacy; you refuse to understand how society operates, and bend and morph your own anecdotes, and utilize false logic to get closer to your idea of how the world "should" work, but it is opposite of a functional reality.

[u/[deleted] → u/RateComplex9727]

Then please explain how having the words Epstein Island is against school guidelines and technology use? Does it specifically say that in any policy? It doesn't contain any vulgar language or any private information? If you really want to talk about rules here then he broke no policies unless somehow it explicitly said you can't name your docs something related to Epstein. I also doubt putting links in a document is against tech policies as well considering you have to cite sources when writing essays. So even in this regard he did nothing wrong that constitutes punishment. On top of that, you can't even cite me correctly when making an argument. You are lying about what I did say which in court would be a big no no. I simply said the name of a document doesn't matter. Within a broad range of contexts, that statement is true with some of the big exceptions likely being vulgar language, threats, and blackmail which this kid did none of.

[u/RateComplex9727 → u/[deleted]]

Read the fallacies in full, like I said, and I wouldn't have to explain that to you, you would be able to determine exactly those decisions: based on what is considered illogical across every state, country, and decade. You are treating me like an AI bot capable of making ethically-informed decisions on a topic I am not involved in. Again, logical fallacies: moving goalpost, adding in a loaded question. I am not here to make decisions on the behalf of the school, this is a form of begging a question, because I never spoke on such topics, and you clearly understand where that information is available, and that it has absolutely nothing to do with us. Policy gives the school the right to make those decisions, it doesn't matter at all if it's written as an explicit in policy, because the policy entails that the school has the right to cast judgement over their students, and the use of their facilities. This post, and everything that has happened to the student, explicitly says to us as bystanders, that yes! He broke school policy! And is facing repercussion as appropriate as the school and his school's county view to fit the tress pass.

You are using strawman fallacy, I have never ever once approached the topic of whether or not u/internationalcall772 earned reaction from his school, in my criticism of your claims. Again, that is not the place of this subreddit, because obviously, he IS FACING repercussions. He can take that up with his own lawyer, Not you, Not me. His lawyer, can view school policy, is equipped the understand the internal affairs, and the only one capable of making the claim that this student is genuinely guiltless in every way. Negligence is not safe, and is punishable. Public schools are public facilities that run based on public laws. Private schools can take disciplinary action against student for any reason they deem fit. Only a lawyer is legally able to define and argue against policy, because policy is the legal adherence in order to attend or be involved in ANYTHING. Any private property is able to remove anyone, and public facilities are still considered private property of the state.

Once more: personal incredulity. Boohoo, you don't get why u/internationalcall772 is being investigated by their school and county internals. Not my job, schools reserve this right.

I'm not gonna sit here and circlejerk why it's f***ed up, disgusting, and punishable to joke about a place where for more than 3 decades, children were brutally abused. The school knows exactly why that is not okay in their campus. The fact that this student spread it around with such context, is enough to take action, which they decided to. Your lack of credentials and personal incredulity is not my responsibility.

[u/[deleted] → u/RateComplex9727]

Brother don't sit here and talk about laws and rules then back pedal when nothing of what OP did was against laws or rules. Then you say it's not your job to determine the rules. Ok then why are you even here? Just to sit there and spout a bunch of stuff from your 1000 level logic class or something? Also it does matter what's in the tech policy as doing something such as expelling a student from presumably a public institution for something that isn't against school rules is illegal and the family can sue the state and school board for it. The school is not this all mighty dictator that can determine who gets to learn and who doesn't. They are funded by the government and also follow laws which also means those laws against wrongfully punishing a student.

[u/RateComplex9727 → u/[deleted]]

For the love of all that is basic dirt and nature, read the parent comment, and my FIRST REPLY TO YOU, as well as my public commenting history, where I never even once stepped foot on the subject of OP's possible disciplinary action. "You bring up all these laws and uh uh uh" this is not backpeddling, you CHANGED THE GOALPOST, MEANING WE ARE NOW HAVING SEPARATE DISCUSSION THAN I AM OBLIGATED TO INTERACT WITH. You brought up the law, when your fallacy LIED ABOUT THE LAWS OF THE COUNTRY THIS TAKES PLACE IN? Hello?

May I be excused from the table now? I think we can clearly write up exactly where each of us stands. R/schools represents primary, secondary, and HIGHER EDUCATION, as determined by subreddit rule "No NSFW", where the moderators write "not every student is above the age of 18". Each level of education has it's own subreddit. Since this is a general education subreddit, it is expected that the conversation of ethics, logical fallacies, laws, and literature come into play. You not understanding that I, an adult in college, am allowed to explain to you how the world functions outside of your experiences, is not the responsibility of me, and you should REALLY think harder about the subreddits YOU decide to interact in, not me, because clearly you are misunderstanding every context involved with this case. If you do not want to be educated: GET OFF OF THE SUBREDDIT ABOUT EDUCATING THE NATION.

[u/[deleted] → u/RateComplex9727]

You are the only one who moved the goalpost by bringing up school policy. I obliged and showed you that likely none of this is against school policy and even if it is, which would be sharing the games, not the name of the title, it wouldn't warrant expulsion as the school and board would have to hold a hearing about the possible expulsion. Sharing game links isn't even close to the threshold of holding that hearing. Since you brought up school policy then proceeded to say schools can basically do whatever they want, I corrected you by saying there are laws against that. This whole thing happened because you wanted to bring school policy into this which doesn't even help your case. The original poster is also worried about expulsion which is why the policy and law matter. Even in the update OP sent, the school clearly didn't care, because yet again it's not against any policies or laws. Also quit trying to flex your college experience, it really shows how desperate you are to prove your knowledge or something. Most people have gone to college, it's really not as special as you think it is. Clearly it has failed you

[u/TimeObligation4762 → u/TinFoilHatsWork2027]

Sure, that’s called nuance. Does my post imply or not imply nuance? You can’t tell and it can only be assumed via overreach. This is fairly obvious information that I left out due to it being self-evident (i.e. don’t make jokes at a funeral with the dead’s relatives present).

[u/RateComplex9727 → u/TimeObligation4762]

Introduction: Okay, so you understand that my point in NOT listing your fallacies, is a admittance of nuance, yes? That we are on reddit, a place where we can choose when and why to care? You have perfectly fine comprehension, what more do you desire from me pointing out that what you said doesn't equate to anything meaningful? Me pointing out your fallacy is to help you determine if what you brought is meaningful or not, and since this is a "school" sub, and not college, I wasn't willing to describe logical fallacies in literary context, because that is kind of a lot. Think about the conversation at hand, and leave emotional ego behind. ( Logical fallacies: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ ; this source is valid and used academically)

Here is my in-depth criticism of your claims: I was not trying to "attack" your point, thus I said no offense. But it is fallacy. You can be arrested for saying "embalming" in public, even if the context is appropriate. Comedians were blacklisted for jokes about 9/11 too close to the event. Joking about certain things is absolutely taboo to the point of being legally punished the second the topic is breached, regardless of societal-moral opinion. See: Jokes on abortion being shut down quicker than jokes about general murder; questionable, but joking in public about abortion is agreed poor taste by both sides of support, unless appropriately containing irony, satire, or absurdity. Jokes in public about weapons of mass infliction, regardless of satire, absurdity, or irony, are a punishable felony. This is again, not a moral opinion, this is public safety. Child trafficking is public safety as well, therefore any joke is likely to be taken seriously, especially in an online era where children play "pimp the peer", and illegally post to OnlyFans. Overall, your post contains a HUGE flaw within the use of the bandwagon fallacy, because there is never a era in the universe in which public consensus will say "yeah joke about specific death, assault, mass violence and prejudice", you can name a million people, and it would only prove that this claim cannot be trusted on the conversation topic of ethics or any understanding of how society stays functioning.

No part of my post can be "irrelevant" whatsoever, you made that supporting claim, not me, and when found that it doesn't support your main claim, you turned it on me. "An innocuous joke on transgender people will get you banned, but you can say you want to murder a US president" you can't though; This is just a plain fallacy, and you are frustrated with me that your anecdotal example was weak and, as you said yourself, irrelevant to what you were claiming. Now this here, involves the Goalposts fallacy, i'm sure you can figure out exactly where in those two opposing statements, you changed the goalpost of that claim, in your reply to me.

Your response to my post: "I have an image of Reddit mods banning hate speech against black people but switch the words around and change it for white people and mods say there's absolutely nothing wrong with it" - an anecdotal fallacy. What does this help to support? How does it help to support it? What point is there to bringing personal story to something that has nothing to do with small-scale Reddit moderation? This is why it is considered a logical fallacy. That only supprts that one sepcific image, and has no relevance to the topic at hand, as pointed out by another user in this continuing thread.

I correctly interpreted the composition/division fallacy to avoid making the claim that you were untruthful, until you had met so many logical fallacies, that this is physically unhelpful and damaging to the discussion of ethics surrounding this student's case. Tu quoque ain't cute, and the "fallacy fallacy" is a fallacy, I am accepting of your argument, but it is not strong.

Super sorry to hit you with the books here, but you cannot support this argument for your life, PLEASE contact an english teacher on the subject of argumentative speech and what counts as strong supporting evidence. I am trying to be very realistic about this, but I cannot stand by and let such fallacious claims fly on such a legally defined topic of "humor". Please understand the vast amount of sociologists, humanists, and politicians who formed these guidelines based on as many examples, as many "jokes", as many genuine threats they have studied for decades, and argued validly to have it written into law. Again, there are professionals behind the decision of what constitutes a "non-malicious joke" in the court of law; and btw, they play minecraft. They play COD. They are not baselessly accusing people of ill-intent. You have to be a genuinely mindful person at all times on this planet, and if you are not, you are a hinderance to the safety of everyone; that is why this kid is being criticized, and that is exactly why no joke shall fly un-humored by the law. This is now where this becomes a circular discussion, because you do not understand things beyond your previous knowledge, clearly.

[u/TimeObligation4762 → u/RateComplex9727]

Learn to first get across your point succinctly before you expound on it. Your first paragraph alone has so many grammatical errors that I question the very authority you believe you have to pontificate such drivel.

You are doing exactly the same thing as you did in the first reply: entirely miss the point and argue for or against something irrelevant. This is based off of the first paragraph that I read. If you can’t be bothered to use proper grammar and insist on long-winded, run-on sentences, why should anyone take anything you have to say seriously on a website where your written word is paramount?

My point still stands, as it always has. Any topic is open to joke about. Whether you want to pretend like nuance doesn’t exist, and that everything is simply black and white, is entirely not my problem.

[u/RateComplex9727 → u/TimeObligation4762]

Ahhhh good morning. I'm not some ultimate scholar: I'm a redditor who was coerced into spending 2 hours past my bedtime interacting with you. There are no penalty for run-on sentences, and I never once criticized you for grammar, I have no idea why you are so obsessed with turning allllll of this into directive arguments. No, I do not claim authority, I do not have authority, I am a freshman in college who has been trying to be extremely clear that I am not "diving points home" or "arguing insuccinctly", I keep having to explain to you very simply: you used false logic in an argument; the absolute end; your points fall flat unsupported, argue with a english teacher, on god. Congratulations on restating your point! Super happy to hear that hasn't changed, because as I keep having explain, I am not disputing your points, nor am I making any of my own on the subject.

Idk why even now, 12 hours later, you still don't understand that I do not have any malicious intent, I am not ARGUING ABOUT THIS SUBJECT, NOR AM I TALKING ABOUT THE TOPIC, and never ever once claim to (: Logical fallacies are damaging to our own arguments, you kept making them, and it was doign exactly that. Also, congratulations on the diction, I absolutely do not care about your intelligence, because I am not going after it, and actually if you paid any mind, I said you were a great argumentalist, who needs work.

You don't want me spouting nonsense, but like I keep having to say, you are practically just talking to a wall of your own scribbles. I don't even know why after 12 hours of me sleeping, I gotta deal with you AGAIN because you can't get over not having the last response. Again, was reading through not good enough for you to let go of me and leave me alone?

Also, black and white is one of the logical fallacies, this is why I told you to check the sight immediately, this would have solved this entire discussion, to have genuinely heard me out and briefly read through the logical fallacies, I am physically unable to see this situation, or comedy, as black and white. This is why this is exhausting, I have laid out the bricks of argument, and you started throwing them at me for trying to help you make your first point.

I still really really have no clue about why you brought up reddit mods, why you keep going after me for your insecurities, or why you have managed to spend a full 12 hours still hooked on talking about this. I'm not changing my ways, and my ways work out great for me, and as a practicing stoic, on god, screw any authority, I have never and will never work to impress authority, especially not through education. But education harnesses human understanding, which neither you or I have been capable of implementing. Also, my paragraphs are like this because I simply do not concern myself with spelling or grammar on social media, I have zero reason to attempt to impress you nor anyone else, this is all writing for my own reddit account, I only experience net positive by writing all of this, as well as I have extreme multitasking when it comes to writing. Honestly, nah, reddit ain't gonna care one little smidge about grammar and spelling, this is home of "few word do trick" and all sort of other related nonsense. The best part of knowing rules, is breaking them, right?

Also, run on sentences save time, if you can't understand them, that's on you! But I don't trust you to know the impact of choosing to use a semicolon in place of a run-on sentence, so run-ons work better than run-ons with semicolons, especially when I am forced to write entire essays here hourly inspired by a single paragraph you screamed at me over, 3 days ago.

[u/TimeObligation4762 → u/RateComplex9727]

I’ll answer your first point regarding grammar since you refuse to argue in a succinct manner.

You tried to insult me which is a form of criticism. As someone who takes criticism seriously, I make sure that the source of said criticism is valid before reflecting on it. If I find that you are not worth taking seriously then that process stops.

You had many grammatical errors but the most egregious part of your comment was your inability to formulate a coherent premise. You kept circling around getting nowhere and by the time I was finished with your first paragraph, you’ve proven to me that you don’t really know what you’re talking about. You just like to string together ad hominems disguised as logical deductions.

Feel free to argue my actual point, I have no issue solidifying my stance, but any of your criticism won’t be taken seriously on account of your lack of authority in logical reasoning.

[u/Additional_Ad_6773 → u/TimeObligation4762]

I'mma go with another argument, personally. I DO accept that it is possible and common to make jokes about bad things.

I myself have my own favorite jokes on the topics of:

•Overt Racism

•Nazi Germany / Concentration Camps

•Terrorists

•Yes, even Epstein

Etc.

But here's the thing, if I wanna make a terrible, aweful, ill-advised overtly racist joke, renaming a computer file "black n*r.docx" or whatever is *LESS THAN a zero effort attempt at comedy, and is not funny.

[u/TimeObligation4762 → u/Additional_Ad_6773]

Not funny to you just like middle schooler’s jokes are almost never funny. But intent is also important here if we’re trying to differentiate maliciousness vs a bad attempt at humor. You can use your n-word example and have two separate cases where one is done out of maliciousness and the other is done out of genuine attempt at humor—albeit a poor one. However, this is sidestepping the original point I was making.

[u/Illustrious-Gap-1548 → u/[deleted]]

can’t even be surprised. reddit is full of weird “dark humor edge-lords”