[Q] and [R] Is this actionable?

[Australian rePublic]

A Bible is unequivocally male- which are supposed to be made in God's image according to it, and warns back in Genesis that the original sin was a man listening to some woman and everything going to crap as a result.

I mean this guy clearly has some fucked up beliefs about women, but is that actually actionable?

[Pakania]

This is why social conservativism is a potential and valid solution. It may be unpopular, but if enough people quit complaining about it and implement the political program, they might actually come to like the policies. Some things are just too important to leave up for women to decide.

The state should simply ban sterilization and abortion and all forms of contraception, limit access or eliminate family planning and the country if not people, can go back to reproducing far more naturally. Women's education should be curtailed or significantly reduced or adjusted to favor indoctrinating women towards their role as a mother and homemaker.

I really hope you're joking and that this is complete sarcasm. I don't even know what this is doing on a Relationship and Lovers Forum.

No it's 100% serious. Women broadly speaking in most of the world, have been or are given far too much agency compared to men and it is tiring. The pendulum swinging the other way is probably inevitable. I believe social conservatism would be good for most people, even if at the expense of some other people. My girlfriend and I would benefit, it'd force us to actually be serious or quit ahead of time. Consequences and outcomes are where the adventure/trials is at within a marriage or courtship.

[Vendellamoore]

I don't think so, it's definitely in bad taste but it doesn't appear to be aimed at any particular user. I mean bad takes are definitely allowed... But if you're antagonizing someone else, that isn't allowed. That's just a layman's take

[Pakania]

I don't think so, it's definitely in bad taste but it doesn't appear to be aimed at any particular user. I mean bad takes are definitely allowed... But if you're antagonizing someone else, that isn't allowed. That's just a layman's take

What about

This is why social conservativism is a potential and valid solution. It may be unpopular, but if enough people quit complaining about it and implement the political program, they might actually come to like the policies. Some things are just too important to leave up for women to decide.

The state should simply ban sterilization and abortion and all forms of contraception, limit access or eliminate family planning and the country if not people, can go back to reproducing far more naturally. Women's education should be curtailed or significantly reduced or adjusted to favor indoctrinating women towards their role as a mother and homemaker.

No it's 100% serious. Women broadly speaking in most of the world, have been or are given far too much agency compared to men and it is tiring. The pendulum swinging the other way is probably inevitable. I believe social conservatism would be good for most people, even if at the expense of some other people. My girlfriend and I would benefit, it'd force us to actually be serious or quit ahead of time. Consequences and outcomes are where the adventure/trials is at within a marriage or courtship.

[Vendellamoore]

I don't think so, it's definitely in bad taste but it doesn't appear to be aimed at any particular user. I mean bad takes are definitely allowed... But if you're antagonizing someone else, that isn't allowed. That's just a layman's take

What about

I mean a very poor take, like very poor, like dirt level poor, like get to rock bottom and start digging poor, but from my understanding of the rules I don't think it's necessarily actionable unless he started to personally attack someone. I mean, though, it could maybe count as a flamebait, but it genuinely seems like a really bad take more than a troll.

[Australian rePublic]

I doubt those would be actionable. If any of it is actionable, it would be the part about the Bible. I mean, no matter how shitty someone's takes are, they have the right to disagree with you (sorry for posting here as a non-mod, but Pakania is new here, and I actually helped her create this thread)

[Pakania]

What about

I mean a very poor take, like very poor, like dirt level poor, like get to rock bottom and start digging poor, but from my understanding of the rules I don't think it's necessarily actionable unless he started to personally attack someone. I mean, though, it could maybe count as a flamebait, but it genuinely seems like a really bad take more than a troll.

Got it, thank you. I'll just stay away from this user from now on and add them as foe.

[Australian rePublic]

I mean a very poor take, like very poor, like dirt level poor, like get to rock bottom and start digging poor, but from my understanding of the rules I don't think it's necessarily actionable unless he started to personally attack someone. I mean, though, it could maybe count as a flamebait, but it genuinely seems like a really bad take more than a troll.

Got it, thank you. I'll just stay away from this user from now on and add them as foe.

I know this will make me sound hypocritical, but you shouldn't post in these threads, unless you're making a report or you're a moderator

[Pakania]

Got it, thank you. I'll just stay away from this user from now on and add them as foe.

I know this will make me sound hypocritical, but you shouldn't post in these threads, unless you're making a report or you're a moderator

No, as in it'll block their posts so I don't see upsetting comments.

[Australian rePublic]

--EDITED-OUT--

[Cessarea]

Moderation probably won't answer that if you're merely doing a query. Are you reporting Sai for the posts cited or not?

[Australian rePublic]

Moderation probably won't answer that if you're merely doing a query. Are you reporting Sai for the posts cited or not?

Yes, it's also a report. Wasn't that implied? Thread title updated

[Australian rePublic]

I know this will make me sound hypocritical, but you shouldn't post in these threads, unless you're making a report or you're a moderator

No, as in it'll block their posts so I don't see upsetting comments.

I understood that, sweetheart. My point still stands. Just block them. You don't need to announce it to the world. I don't necasserily agree that blocking people who you disagree with is helpful to, well anything really, but if it's upsetting you that much, it probably is the best course of action

[Fahran]

While certainly containing some of the opinions of all time, I do not perceive any these posts as actionable. They do not read as trolling since they make a substantive argument in language that is mild enough that it manages to avoid explicitly insulting the intelligence or capabilities of all women. Implicitly...? Well, I suppose that's rather the point of debate forums.

Also, I will kindly remind all y'all that spamming Moderation is bad.

[Sedgistan]

Moderation probably won't answer that if you're merely doing a query. Are you reporting Sai for the posts cited or not?

Yes, it's also a report. Wasn't that implied? Thread title updated

If you are reporting a post that you think may violate the rules, your thread should be labelled as a report. All reports are inherently going to be asking Moderators if something is actionable; you should not label those as queries. As per the How to use Moderation guide, "Miscellaneous queries" are for general questions about the rules.