C.com TOS -BANNNED!

ALL CAPS FTW!!!

Someone created a Michael Jackson tread to celebrate the King of Pop. As expected, like everything else that comes with corporatist ideology, it quickly broke down into the us vs them 2 camps: those that love MJ and those that point out he was a pedo. C.com shut it down for breaking TOS, exercising its sole authority to determine acceptable discussions -which itself is a political act notwithstanding C.com forbids political discussion. IDK if the following breaks the TOS, but as first pointed out by Aristotle when he wrote, "all politics starts in the family", everything is political so such a broad ban is subject to.... well... as also the ancient Greeks first pointed out, the problematic nature of arbitrary decrees.

Okay... excusing for a moment "profanity" and "swearing" mean the same thing, and forgetting for a moment, profanity/swear words are just words like every other word (well... minus the air of social nobility that comes with moralizing those words, the forbidding of anything "inappropriate topics" (inappropriate language does have a clearer connotation of meaning -and ignoring for a moment that adults seem to forget just how much swearing children do as soon as they hear the words -cause, like MJ point out, "who's bad?") seems just a little too broad. While C.com certainly isnt a civic institution, that corporations take advantage of their right to arbitrary rules is the root for conditioning society to accept arbitrary rule ergo the desire of the general public to desire authoritarian rule. So.... does this post breech TOS for suggesting C.com's implementation of their TOS is a political act or does it not cause rather than being a statement about C.com's political behaviour is rather site feedback?

In short, as long as C.com wants to support social engagement of players who use the platform, I would like to see greater clarification of what C.com deems "inappropriate" cause.... well.... I dont want to wake up one day to find I've been banned from the site for saying and my Diamond Membership fee pocketed cause I created a post that said, "be sure to vote".

TIA.

Zing! Here's the rule: "#2 - No profanity, swearing, or inappropriate language or topics." A nice, conscience rule. It's as if C.com wrote this rule just for you, people who derive satisfaction for lording over others using banal values of "niceties". A person who thinks about "rules" sees the obvious "fork": inappropriate means whatever offends a certain person's sensibilities. Does questioning a rule that's designed to enforce niceness and imply a policy of "dont offend the snowflakes" (and here again... another problematic word that could easily be deemed "inappropriate") itself inappropriate? Being "nice" to others is far more complicated than your zinger implies. If I disagree with you, which clearly I do, does that mean I am being inappropriate because I disagree with you? Like seriously... we are an international user base with a wide swath of mores and mannerisms. I bet there are Westerns who are simply offending by a person from a Middle Eastern, East & SE Asian countries saying "no" or "I disagree", and being a Western-based operation, applying the "inappropriate" standard clearly demonstrates one example of revived colonialism.

As for the idea anyone employed rhetoric in the MJ thread I think confuses the concept for a statement one doesnt agree with (ie, "MJ was a pedo... why are we celebrating him?"). The idea of a pedo is offensive, for obvious reasons that people wanna believe there are no such things as pedos, which directly exposes the wish of some out there who prefer to deal with the dark-side of humanity by simply assuaging the trauma of the abused rather than recognized the suffering of others. The idea of celebrating a pedo isnt offensive cause it's the "King of Pop"? Seems fishy. IDK... maybe the celebration was the "inappropriate"... or was it the thought of a child being molested. Would a thread about the "The Great Movies Made by Harvey Weinstein" be inappropriate?

Then again... it could all just be about C.com not wanting to face a defamation lawsuit by incredibly powerful and amoral people..... which, to state the obvious, is a political conclusion.

Seriously... Im genuinely asking for clarification on the site rule cause it's so damn vague (is "damn" profanity or not? Cause I certainly know a good deal of people who do think "damn" is inappropriate language).

It all feels a little too panopticon-y....

So Macaulay Culkin is not enough for you then? Why is that ?

I didnt bring up MJ to re-hash the thread. It had to be cited in order to clarify "inappropriate" problem. The admin justified closing the thread (which IMO has a bad judgment call), and pointed us to the TOS. The TOS  is too vague, ergo leaves readers asking, was the thread closed because it brought up paedophilia (yuk) or was it closed because the so-called, King of Pop, was being associated with being a pedo? Like celebrating MJ's music seems like an appropriate topic until you consider that some people may have serious issues with pedos and even worse, celebrating one. But regardless on where one falls on the matter, the discussion of MJ being a pedo comes with the territory and not in any way an inappropriate conversation. The topic is simply being a human in our messed up version of reality. Case in point, can a user start a thread entitled, "The Brilliant Movie Making of Harvey Weinstein" to celebrate the brilliant movies made by the King of Massage?

If a platform is gonna host an "Off-Topic" forums section, then it should permit the users to have the off-topic banter, "was MJ a pedo or not?" There are obvious lines users shouldnt cross, ie promoting hate, violence against a group etc., and yes, things can get pretty controversial without ever clearly crossing the line, and yes platforms could move that line to avoid a discussion devolving that close to the line, but the case for closing the MJ thread "begs the question" (speaking of rhetoric -and not that I used the term correctly) why even have an off-topic thread C.com? If admins are gonna be that prudish, just get rid of section.... but alas, no executive has made such a decision cause it would send an awkward and peculiar message.

First of all he was found innocent, so right there the slander towards him gave the mod perfect right to lock that thread, especially considering it was to remember, in remembrance of him, just as Macaulay certainly has verified his innocence and I’m sure also would express his feelings toward the king of pop who was his wonderful friend that many adults couldn’t begin to comprehend because how far away they got from their innocence, as that kid certainly saw OF Michael.

…Michael’s innocence 

One should really ponder my last sentence, about the loss of innocence from the adults that find him guilty, and how a kid like Macaulay speaks always only in defense regarding him and his friend, Michael.

😆 …. lol I see.. 

…. lol I’m taking it by your two hr ago online that you’ve no response