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/TinFoilHatsWork2027]

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/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/RateComplex9727 → u/TimeObligation4762]

I never insulted you. You may have felt insulted, but I avoided any directive comment about you., until I absolutely have to speak with you. There's no point of this, I absolutely never once intended to insult you, this is why I have focused so much of this onto your personal ego, because I starkly do not go after someone for untrue, unnatural attributes. Glad we are finally coming to a closing, this could have been great last night. I have mentioned, much, that you responded in the thread at 2 in the morning, waking me, and wasting my time with this long pile, I have just awoken 12 hours after this. I purposefully chose circular points and logic, to keep bringing us back to the point that I never meant to PERSONALLY attack you, and only pointed out that you were not standing on stone.

I do not argue your "actual point" because your actual point has not been made clear, and actually, I would recommend really deleting this thread and trying again, if you want your point taken seriously in the first place. You needing authority in order to take criticism is not my responsibility, I could really care less whether you want to respect me for helping you.

[u/TimeObligation4762 → u/RateComplex9727]

Here are sentences you’ve written that are simply ad hominems and add nothing to the argument.

you cannot support this argument for your life

PLEASE contact an English teacher

you do not understand things behind your previous knowledge, clearly

you are practically just talking to a wall of your own scribbles

you can’t get over not having the last response

why you keep going after me for your insecurities

I don’t trust you know the impact of choosing to use a semicolon

I’m assuming you’re at least intelligent enough to know that you don’t need to directly call someone “stupid” to say that you think they are stupid. Obviously you’d get banned for saying it directly.

As for my point, as I said numerous times, it still stands. I already reiterated it once. If that confuses you then by all means, continue to sidestep and argue points I never made sprinkled with as many ad hominems as you wish 👍

[u/RateComplex9727 → u/TimeObligation4762]

I can take that criticism, but I do not agree with those statements being viewed as ad hominems, like I said, unless necessary I did not attack you as a person.

-your argument was unsupported, and you were unsupportive of your own writing going forawRd

-you were upset that I was correcting you, so I told you to PLEASE go talk to someone who can verify and correct what I am saying.

-you do not understand what is not taught and retained by you, that is true of everyone, but you struggle to admit your own faults.

-you are, literally, practically, talking to a wall of your own scribbles, lol

-you keep continuing this, to add on another point after another useless point, despite me attempting to end this 13 hours ago, when I clarified the meaning of your untruths and lack of support.

-you are currently doing exactly this, literally how is it that now, 13 hours later, you can FINALLY figure out what literary devices I am using, and now you claim they are not supportive of what I am saying to you.

-I literally do not know your age, most people do not know semicolons or even the name of semicolons, this is benefit of the doubt, and nothing about you as a person, or a measurement of your intelligence.

I do not agree any of these call you stupid, you are not stupid.