Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no". 
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].

So, Voat is just like this place.
no

Because you equate one being pure, and the other being trashy and with diseases
yes

For the most part I try not to take people's inability to do basic analysis personally. Like the people joking about English teachers reaching for meanings/symbols are probably in primary education themselves.    I mean English teachers usually choose books with heavy use of symbols to *teach* symbolism. Most students are just too dense to get it until they are lead by the hand.     It might also explain why so many people on Reddit don't get the concept of Dog-whistles. The idea that words or symbols can mean more than what's written or seen is something they simply don't have the education to grasp.

no

