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.
"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.
I can respect an argument while having zero respect for the one making it. Case in point: Imp.
"Views" and "opinions" don't deserve resepect. Any asshole can form an opinion, just as any asshole can decide they're offended. I don't care and mods certainly shouldn't either.
blah blah blah feminine bullshit
This is exactly why women (and simps) should not be mods.
We are trying to discuss conspiracies that deal with, among other things: transhumanism, cannibalism, child rape, and human sacrifice. No one who gets their panties in a twist about hurty words is emotionally mature enough to deal with this subject matter. They don't belong here, simple as. If a conspiracy forum is more concerned with feelings that the truth, no matter how brutal, then it's not worth the electrons.
The sidebar is: "Please respect other views and opinions, and keep an open mind."
Add:
I can respect an argument while having zero respect for the one making it.
The other sidebar is: "Be respectful. Attack the argument, not the person." And: "abuse of other users here, may all be removed at moderator's discretion."
I don't see that having zero respect for another human and using abusive terms harmonizes with the rules as conceived by the original mods and community. But I haven't read the new thread yet, maybe that'll be a better approach for your concern.
So you have absolutely zero argument, which I could at least respect, you just appeal to the rule that you decide is legit.
You are pathetic: you don't even have any real power and it's already gone completely to your head. You are not a person who should have authority over anything.
Edit: Nice stealth edit, very transparent...
If we were speaking in person, I would have respect for you as a human being. I wouldn't physically attack you, deprive you of autonomy, etc.
But we aren't. I'm not engaging with you as a human being, I'm engaging with words on a screen. I don't even know that you're human. And if you are, I don't know that you aren't simply acting out a character for nefarious purposes.
I always here feminoids going on and on about respect. Well, if respect is worth anything it must be used judiciously. My respecting you means nothing if I also respect piles of pig shit. You haven't done anything to earn my respect, and your arguments haven't either. I literally cannot respect you, regardless of the rules.
What you're talking about is not respect, it's validation. You want me to treat you as though you are acting in good faith and putting forth good arguments, regardless of whether that's the case, which completely removes any incentive on you to do either.
That is a great way to obfuscate the Truth; putting up with bad actors because it would be mean to put them in their place.
you just appeal to the rule that you decide is legit.
Um, the community is founded on the principle that the rules are legit and agreed by the community and the mods. I asked again a couple months ago and the community affirmed the rules again. If you disagree with the rules as written, you should get community support for it. I have no problem with a community formally deciding that its rules need changing.
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.
I can respect an argument while having zero respect for the one making it. Case in point: Imp.
"Views" and "opinions" don't deserve resepect. Any asshole can form an opinion, just as any asshole can decide they're offended. I don't care and mods certainly shouldn't either.
This is exactly why women (and simps) should not be mods.
We are trying to discuss conspiracies that deal with, among other things: transhumanism, cannibalism, child rape, and human sacrifice. No one who gets their panties in a twist about hurty words is emotionally mature enough to deal with this subject matter. They don't belong here, simple as. If a conspiracy forum is more concerned with feelings that the truth, no matter how brutal, then it's not worth the electrons.
Futhermore: nigger.
The sidebar is: "Please respect other views and opinions, and keep an open mind."
Add:
The other sidebar is: "Be respectful. Attack the argument, not the person." And: "abuse of other users here, may all be removed at moderator's discretion."
I don't see that having zero respect for another human and using abusive terms harmonizes with the rules as conceived by the original mods and community. But I haven't read the new thread yet, maybe that'll be a better approach for your concern.
So you have absolutely zero argument, which I could at least respect, you just appeal to the rule that you decide is legit.
You are pathetic: you don't even have any real power and it's already gone completely to your head. You are not a person who should have authority over anything.
Edit: Nice stealth edit, very transparent...
If we were speaking in person, I would have respect for you as a human being. I wouldn't physically attack you, deprive you of autonomy, etc.
But we aren't. I'm not engaging with you as a human being, I'm engaging with words on a screen. I don't even know that you're human. And if you are, I don't know that you aren't simply acting out a character for nefarious purposes.
I always here feminoids going on and on about respect. Well, if respect is worth anything it must be used judiciously. My respecting you means nothing if I also respect piles of pig shit. You haven't done anything to earn my respect, and your arguments haven't either. I literally cannot respect you, regardless of the rules.
What you're talking about is not respect, it's validation. You want me to treat you as though you are acting in good faith and putting forth good arguments, regardless of whether that's the case, which completely removes any incentive on you to do either.
That is a great way to obfuscate the Truth; putting up with bad actors because it would be mean to put them in their place.
Um, the community is founded on the principle that the rules are legit and agreed by the community and the mods. I asked again a couple months ago and the community affirmed the rules again. If you disagree with the rules as written, you should get community support for it. I have no problem with a community formally deciding that its rules need changing.