On a/pep followers having their own group name

bpdv4flower:

bpdv4flower:

okay so in this post I mentioned the possibility of a/pep followers having their own name that the kemetic community who don’t have the spoons to deal with rampant negativity could blacklist. Myself included.

A suggestion that might be amenable so that a/pep’s followers have their own name but that won’t require kemetics to censor it (and thus censor it in fifty different ways which makes a blacklist functionally useless) is the Unharmed.

at the very least, kemetics, please agree on a singular tag I can blacklist for this ridiculously negative discourse.

@sphinxliike The problem I have with this is they would still be in Kemeticism..when really, what they are doing is completely the opposite of what Kemeticism teaches.

I agree, personally, which is exactly why I feel they need their own distinct name, to separate them from Kemeticism. I don’t see how naming it makes it any more a part of kemeticism than not naming it and risking more and more people using the kemetic tags for something we find antithetical to our practice would do.

and seriously: the myriad ways we all censor a/pep’s name is very very bad for blacklisting. having a/pep followers have their own name, one that doesn’t require censoring, is a major point for me. I’d like to be able to avoid their community, and tbh even discussion of it, without having to add a ton of different variations on the same name with different ways I’ve seen it censored, only for yet another variation to pop up I hadn’t thought of before.

Ahh I see, that makes a lot more sense then and I agree with what you’re saying.