Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Of course I have a dog in this fight, I'm trying to thread the needle between allowing people to discuss their views even if they are terrible views and just not allowing differing opinions at all in an area where everyone has wildly different ideas as to what should be allowed.
If it was just me deciding based on my personal morals it would be easy.
Is it your expectation that the moderators go through every questionable post and research if a website is considered racist, who it's considered racist by, etc? Spend hours researching one post?
Or do we just see that 3 people reported it and ban the user because 3 people reported it?
|
Thats a false dichotomy. Its not just 2 options, allowing people to discuss "terrible views" vs not allowing any discussion on polarizing topics.
Maybe someone can put your logic to the test? Post clips and articles from KKK websites or stormfront.
Its NOT that everyone has wildly different opinions on what should be allowed. Its that everyone has different opinions on what qualifies as bigotry. I've received warnings on this forum for much less.
Draw a bloodly line. What is allowed and what isnt?
Miss me with this BS about you threading a needle between allowing hate speech and shutting down discussions.
It isnt that complicated.
We cant post NSFW, we cant post entire articles, we cant name call, we cant be abusive - but we CAN post 'misleading sets of facts without context'.
So holocaust denial is kosher now?
Will people be allowed to post other things from racist websites like 10 reasons why the filthy jews were responsible for the world wars? How to deal with the worlds jew problem? Would that be a misleading set of facts without context?
I've seen similar posts and threads on Islam.
Just draw a line Mr.Mod
Dont perma ban people for swearing and defend peoples right to be bigoted idiots who share articles from racist websites.