JustSara

This isn’t new btw.

It’s always been like this for me.

It is ok when the ingroup does it to the outgroup.

Its is not ok when the outgroup does it to the ingroup.

You won’t get one.

If they actually intended to talk about biological race, then they said that non-white people:

1. Are reliant on others (presumably for everything)
2. Can not think rationally
3. Don’t understand ownership of property
4. Don’t understand how time works

The modern use of “white supremacy” doesn’t have anything to do with race, it’s about the political concept of “whiteness”, which is pseduo-intelletual babbel trying to cover for the the lunatics that have been running arround for years calling eveything racist.

This Smithsonian published (unironically) a poster that fairly accurately describes…[Read more]

Except for when it is allowed.

I don’t remember there being a F4.

The guides refuse to read the chat history, so this is the only way to report things.

They only see what they want to see.

They are all equally as bad.

Basic investigation would show that weyman isn’t new.

Just did a brief scroll thought the chat history in F1 and F3, I didn’t see any names that I didn’t recognise.

Weird.

You aren’t adressing the issue, which is the double standards.

If some people are abused, sudden and huge changes have to be made and a whole class of users has to be banned even the ones that are innocent. If other people are abused then they are called a drama queen and need to grow up.

I don’t know why I have to keep repeating this, but…[Read more]

I would like to document another unprofessional exchange with a chat guide.

Context (not captured):

When I logged into the room the conversation was about insurance on bank accounts being covered up to £75,000. I mentioned that it isn’t a good idea to keep that much money in a bank account and it would be better to invest it.

LE responded that…[Read more]

Firstly this is a poll, not a vote. There is no winner or loser. Sampling board user’s opinion of the chat room is a flaw in the methodology, but perhaps this isn’t important.

I’m applying a variation of Paul Samuelson’s stong axiom of revealed preference.

I thought that it was self explanatory, but the general idea is that a stated preference…[Read more]

I didn’t do that intentionally, direct your complaints at Martin.

And yet you refuse to ban people who post homophobic abuse.

This is example of the difference between stated and revealed preference.

People will state that they prefer the chat without guests because it’s the current status quo.

However their revealed preference is that they in fact prefer guests, this is proven by the following:

1. When the members only room was opened nobody used it
2. When guests were…

[Read more]

So … wheres the ban?

I was told that preventing vile and hateful abuse was this sites #1 priority.

You need to unban them first.

But what is the motivation behind this post?

I guess chat usage must be dropping off, I wonder whyever that could be.