Whether they use it to grant them legitimacy or not has no effect on whether implicit consent *itself* is or isn’t coercive

>Agrees to rules in order to make Discord account
>Gets banned from several servers for being an absolute twat
>***I'M BEING OPPRESSED***

@Phobia fuck off

No.

Let him have his fun @unwoundtoast

Why?

I'd recommend speaking to people here with a tad bit more respect

No

@Phobia I respect those I choose to respect

You are not one

Fuck yourself

So be it.

👍 👍 👍

The only way to enforce implicit rules is by coercion, simply because the one being involuntarily imposed upon didnt explicitly agree to rules.

@Anastasia the enforcement of implicit consent is not implicit consent itself

Whether they use it to grant them legitimacy or not has no effect on whether implicit consent *itself* is or isn’t coercive

Time to order an inordinate number of dildos for toast to give to people when he wants them to go fuck themselves...

Please

Jeff Bezos will be happy

@T3CHN01200 make this quicker

That's because it is an assumption of acceptance.

@Anastasia that does not make the implicit consent itself coercive

Whether they use it to grant them legitimacy or not has no effect on whether implicit consent *itself* is or isn’t coercive

You legit clicked a checkbox that said that you agree to TOS

You can’t prove that moron

Jesus fucking Christ

A person cannot agree to anything they don't understand explicitly. It would be a fraudulent contract.

@Anastasia holding someone to implicit consent is not itself implicit consent

Whether they use it to grant them legitimacy or not has no effect on whether implicit consent *itself* is or isn’t coercive

There is no binding contract with implicit consent.

Correct, such does not make implicit consent coercive

They cannot enforce the non binding contract without using an involuntary hierarchy.

Also correct

But again

The enforcement != the implicit consent

Whether they use it to grant them legitimacy or not has no effect on whether implicit consent *itself* is or isn’t coercive

Implicit consent is by it's very nature coercive because it can't be enforced. To claim that it is a contract is the coercion.

Unenforceability is coercion?

Is that your argument?

Because if the one trying to enforce the contract, is using a nullity, the very thought of it being an enforceable contract is coercion.

Is unenforceability grounds to classify a thing as coercive?