At risk of more heat, I note this is clearly a topic where people want to express strong opinions even without a formal call for vote. Here's a representative quote from each contributor and a categorization, strictly IMHO:
Looser enforcement (11) (17):
AndurilElessar: bad case
ApexVeritas: arguments Redditors use to ban wrongthink [Add]
BeefyBelisarius: mod too heavy-handed
BlueDrache: Until thisisnotanexit is removed for overmoderation, I'll unsub [Add]
CrazyRussian: direct opposite to any "free think"
defenderOfMontrocity: free speech
Entropick: RIP c.win
free-will-of-choice: the power to make not available what one freely thinks about
JDooliddle: Respect if you confront me directly as an individual
JosephGoebbel5: slave mentality
NotACat: gray and detarded
Standhaft_Garithos: Why would I bother putting up with this [Add]
TallestSkil: the letters are physically able to be typed
That_Which_Lurks: Proof? There is none [Add]
VeilOfReality: the idea is don't say no-no words because AI might come after us?
Versus001: they grab their modrator shejkels [Add]
WeedleTLiar: going to power trip [Add]
Neutral (1):
Questionable: no idea
Current enforcement (4):
AnotherInTheFire: what substance do slurs bring to the discussion
SwampRangers: The issue is respect
Thisisnotanexit: language not available in this community
TurnToGodNow: cursing counter productive
(Side note: Admin decided to put exactly two words in their default global filter, allowing mods (as here) to disable the default. It seems a very reasonable position to regard those two words as more sensitive for that reason alone, even though this doesn't indicate what position the community should take. But the tracking argument doesn't deal with the real issue, namely that the rule is about a respect argument.)
I much prefer this, where a community rapidly develops a clear consensus on majority and minority opinions! However, I see only one response from within the majority that actually addresses the Rule 1 that we have been handed down and that indicates the way we used to proceed here (and I was writing here occasionally and lurking regularly too). So I don't think the community has yet demonstrated a harmony of these two tensions, the respect rule and the freethinking site summary.
Is it really possible to respect a person and not be attacking them while calling them a derogatory name? There is a meta answer, namely yes if everyone covenanted together that they would not receive namecalling as an attack; I'm not sure that this community is ready for that. The community still seems to have quite a few people subscribing to double standards, namely people who "just know" that something others say against them is an attack but something they say against others is not. And for that it takes level moderation.
I would invite everyone to consider that question. See if comments are removed for using slurs that are fully respectful of other views and opinions. We can except comments that respectfully mention slurs rather than use them, because while we're talking about slurs we may well name them recognizing how others use them without using them that way ourselves; but that's the vast minority. In OP, there is one comment that mentions slurs rather than using them, and I appeal to u/Thisisnotanexit to restore that comment for that reason, as a transitional clarification. Others may appeal that other contributions may take advantage of the use-mention distinction. The restriction is not against the string, but against the disrespect.
But I suspect that no comment was removed for using slurs that could be considered fully respectful. I submit that in TINAE's comment below, she could say that "all are derogation", not just some. She can also separate out the mention of derogation from the use of it. If any of the majority view can propose a way in which a newcomer could read the rules "respect other views and opinions" without "calls to violence" and see everyone called every vile name in the book and reconcile the two, I'm all ears.
(BTW, one compromise is to allow a little leeway for slurs but to note that all posts intending Wild West language should be flagged NSFW by the contributor on pain of deletion, and namecalling comments could be deleted if the thread is not so flagged. This hides them from newcomers by default, and regulars would be asked to understand. However, I think this would be a significant rule change from the past intent and should not be a matter of a couple hours' opinion polling.)
I don't think the argument would be sustained that this is a community where egregious namecalling and dehumanization is "respect" for other opinions.
Ehh, this site was fucked from the beginning though. Same tribe as Ruqqus, same shit played out, just toned down. Ever notice how they never had to beg for money for support? And now we can't talk about actual conspiracies in a sub dedicated to specifically that? π€
Maybe. I find, though, that there's a sweet spot where the honeypots are still trying to catch flies where they'll let you say anything.
The last ten years have taught me that there is no based forum, just psyops that you can turn to your advantage for a short time, before you head off to greener pastures.
I have no doubt that, as this site shuts down, there will be plenty of new ones talking about the Epstein Files in ways that will be shut down here. (Isn't it funny how this drama is kicking off just as the biggest confirmed conspiracy, maybe ever, is being exposed?)
So the alt using astroturfer is again lying. No rules have been put in place to ban you from talking about any particular conspiracy.
You're a dishonest actor who admitted you wish to drive users away yourself https://imgur.com/a/CECwggj Any opinion you have on this community should be viewed in that light.
At risk of more heat, I note this is clearly a topic where people want to express strong opinions even without a formal call for vote. Here's a representative quote from each contributor and a categorization, strictly IMHO:
Looser enforcement
(11)(17):AndurilElessar: bad case
ApexVeritas: arguments Redditors use to ban wrongthink [Add]
BeefyBelisarius: mod too heavy-handed
BlueDrache: Until thisisnotanexit is removed for overmoderation, I'll unsub [Add]
CrazyRussian: direct opposite to any "free think"
defenderOfMontrocity: free speech
Entropick: RIP c.win
free-will-of-choice: the power to make not available what one freely thinks about
JDooliddle: Respect if you confront me directly as an individual
JosephGoebbel5: slave mentality
NotACat: gray and detarded
Standhaft_Garithos: Why would I bother putting up with this [Add]
TallestSkil: the letters are physically able to be typed
That_Which_Lurks: Proof? There is none [Add]
VeilOfReality: the idea is don't say no-no words because AI might come after us?
Versus001: they grab their modrator shejkels [Add]
WeedleTLiar: going to power trip [Add]
Neutral (1):
Current enforcement (4):
AnotherInTheFire: what substance do slurs bring to the discussion
SwampRangers: The issue is respect
Thisisnotanexit: language not available in this community
TurnToGodNow: cursing counter productive
(Side note: Admin decided to put exactly two words in their default global filter, allowing mods (as here) to disable the default. It seems a very reasonable position to regard those two words as more sensitive for that reason alone, even though this doesn't indicate what position the community should take. But the tracking argument doesn't deal with the real issue, namely that the rule is about a respect argument.)
I much prefer this, where a community rapidly develops a clear consensus on majority and minority opinions! However, I see only one response from within the majority that actually addresses the Rule 1 that we have been handed down and that indicates the way we used to proceed here (and I was writing here occasionally and lurking regularly too). So I don't think the community has yet demonstrated a harmony of these two tensions, the respect rule and the freethinking site summary.
Is it really possible to respect a person and not be attacking them while calling them a derogatory name? There is a meta answer, namely yes if everyone covenanted together that they would not receive namecalling as an attack; I'm not sure that this community is ready for that. The community still seems to have quite a few people subscribing to double standards, namely people who "just know" that something others say against them is an attack but something they say against others is not. And for that it takes level moderation.
I would invite everyone to consider that question. See if comments are removed for using slurs that are fully respectful of other views and opinions. We can except comments that respectfully mention slurs rather than use them, because while we're talking about slurs we may well name them recognizing how others use them without using them that way ourselves; but that's the vast minority. In OP, there is one comment that mentions slurs rather than using them, and I appeal to u/Thisisnotanexit to restore that comment for that reason, as a transitional clarification. Others may appeal that other contributions may take advantage of the use-mention distinction. The restriction is not against the string, but against the disrespect.
But I suspect that no comment was removed for using slurs that could be considered fully respectful. I submit that in TINAE's comment below, she could say that "all are derogation", not just some. She can also separate out the mention of derogation from the use of it. If any of the majority view can propose a way in which a newcomer could read the rules "respect other views and opinions" without "calls to violence" and see everyone called every vile name in the book and reconcile the two, I'm all ears.
(BTW, one compromise is to allow a little leeway for slurs but to note that all posts intending Wild West language should be flagged NSFW by the contributor on pain of deletion, and namecalling comments could be deleted if the thread is not so flagged. This hides them from newcomers by default, and regulars would be asked to understand. However, I think this would be a significant rule change from the past intent and should not be a matter of a couple hours' opinion polling.)
I don't think the argument would be sustained that this is a community where egregious namecalling and dehumanization is "respect" for other opinions.
Have you ever NOT cucked to dictator rule?
As usual, the absolute last people who should have power have been handed power.
Ehh, this site was fucked from the beginning though. Same tribe as Ruqqus, same shit played out, just toned down. Ever notice how they never had to beg for money for support? And now we can't talk about actual conspiracies in a sub dedicated to specifically that? π€
Maybe. I find, though, that there's a sweet spot where the honeypots are still trying to catch flies where they'll let you say anything.
The last ten years have taught me that there is no based forum, just psyops that you can turn to your advantage for a short time, before you head off to greener pastures.
I have no doubt that, as this site shuts down, there will be plenty of new ones talking about the Epstein Files in ways that will be shut down here. (Isn't it funny how this drama is kicking off just as the biggest confirmed conspiracy, maybe ever, is being exposed?)
So the alt using astroturfer is again lying. No rules have been put in place to ban you from talking about any particular conspiracy.
You're a dishonest actor who admitted you wish to drive users away yourself https://imgur.com/a/CECwggj Any opinion you have on this community should be viewed in that light.