I acknowledged the majority view, in fact stated it before anyone else did, and proposed a compromise. I am fine with participating in a community with agreed rules and an agreed moderation team.
The community has by default agreed on a rule of respect. Now I point out that the community has a large segment that don't see a dichotomy between this rule and freedom to call names and dehumanize. Ordinarily, those who are vocal in a short period should not get to outshout those who established and upheld the rule. If the meaning of the rule is to change from its plain text, this should be agreed by the community more formally so that it doesn't become an informal belligerence.
Test case: How is it respectful for you to use the disparaging, often offensive term "cuck" to me? I submit that it isn't.
Test case: I don't know any of you assholes; most of you are probably either bots or paid agents. Where does respect come into that?
I can respect an argument, if it makes sense, is internally consistent, and fits all available facts, regardless ofnwho makes it. If we're here to have discussions in pursuit of Truth, I'm all for it.
Your opinion/view is that by banning words that our enemies say we shouldn't say we'll, what? Attract more users? Avoid the government murdering us in our beds? Certainly not facilitate the pursuit of Truth...
I don't respect that, and some pissant rule makes zero difference to me.
If you want to interpret that nobody need respect other users because the rule is about respect for arguments (under the name of views and opinions), that would at least be consistent.
But it doesn't deal with "attack ... not the person" and "no ... bullying 'meta'" and "calls to violence and/or abuse of other users here, may all be removed".
Scored terms are that if you don't agree with community rules your contributions can be moderated. Flat. Standard across all common carriers. By implying yourself free to break the rules, terms require the moderator to be prepared to deal with violations.
I did read the thread, which is why I summarized it and pointed out the core tension isn't fully dealt with, just as above. If I should have focused on attack, bullying, violence, and abuse rather than respect, that's semantic.
When you namecall or dehumanize another user, that's abuse and may be removed; what other interpretation could there be? It can also fall under personal attack and bullying, and often violence.
If (as conspiracists might) you subscribe to a theory of government where you are not bound by Scored terms, I don't think that's negotiable, you might need 8kun. If your theory is that all prior members and mods can be ignored and only those who are active right now count, as soon as you step away from the screen the cabal may use its alts to get you banned in absentia; that's why I don't recommend that theory.
Anyway, try the new thread, unless you can answer how abusing users somehow complies with all those other clauses against abusing users.
I acknowledged the majority view, in fact stated it before anyone else did, and proposed a compromise. I am fine with participating in a community with agreed rules and an agreed moderation team.
The community has by default agreed on a rule of respect. Now I point out that the community has a large segment that don't see a dichotomy between this rule and freedom to call names and dehumanize. Ordinarily, those who are vocal in a short period should not get to outshout those who established and upheld the rule. If the meaning of the rule is to change from its plain text, this should be agreed by the community more formally so that it doesn't become an informal belligerence.
Test case: How is it respectful for you to use the disparaging, often offensive term "cuck" to me? I submit that it isn't.
Test case: I don't know any of you assholes; most of you are probably either bots or paid agents. Where does respect come into that?
I can respect an argument, if it makes sense, is internally consistent, and fits all available facts, regardless ofnwho makes it. If we're here to have discussions in pursuit of Truth, I'm all for it.
Your opinion/view is that by banning words that our enemies say we shouldn't say we'll, what? Attract more users? Avoid the government murdering us in our beds? Certainly not facilitate the pursuit of Truth...
I don't respect that, and some pissant rule makes zero difference to me.
If you want to interpret that nobody need respect other users because the rule is about respect for arguments (under the name of views and opinions), that would at least be consistent.
But it doesn't deal with "attack ... not the person" and "no ... bullying 'meta'" and "calls to violence and/or abuse of other users here, may all be removed".
Scored terms are that if you don't agree with community rules your contributions can be moderated. Flat. Standard across all common carriers. By implying yourself free to break the rules, terms require the moderator to be prepared to deal with violations.
I did read the thread, which is why I summarized it and pointed out the core tension isn't fully dealt with, just as above. If I should have focused on attack, bullying, violence, and abuse rather than respect, that's semantic.
When you namecall or dehumanize another user, that's abuse and may be removed; what other interpretation could there be? It can also fall under personal attack and bullying, and often violence.
If (as conspiracists might) you subscribe to a theory of government where you are not bound by Scored terms, I don't think that's negotiable, you might need 8kun. If your theory is that all prior members and mods can be ignored and only those who are active right now count, as soon as you step away from the screen the cabal may use its alts to get you banned in absentia; that's why I don't recommend that theory.
Anyway, try the new thread, unless you can answer how abusing users somehow complies with all those other clauses against abusing users.