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.
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) (16):
-
AndurilElessar: bad case
-
ApexVeritas: arguments Redditors use to ban wrongthink [Add]
-
BeefyBelisarius: mod too heavy-handed
-
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.
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) (15):
-
AndurilElessar: bad case
-
ApexVeritas: arguments Redditors use to ban wrongthink [Add]
-
BeefyBelisarius: mod too heavy-handed
-
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?
-
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.
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) (12):
-
AndurilElessar: bad case
-
BeefyBelisarius: mod too heavy-handed
-
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
-
VeilOfReality: the idea is don't say no-no words because AI might come after us?
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.
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):
-
AndurilElessar: bad case
-
BeefyBelisarius: mod too heavy-handed
-
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
-
TallestSkil: the letters are physically able to be typed
-
VeilOfReality: the idea is don't say no-no words because AI might come after us?
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.