Translation: "Use a conditional phrasing rather than a declarative phrasing because it's offensive to my feelings."
Fine, I'll play your little game. "We have observed that you have been going down the road of language policing and it is creating concerns amongst some members that we're repeating the mistakes that made Reddit the CCP controlled platform that it is now."
How's that? Suitably facile and flowery for your tastes?
Fair enough. I'm compelled to acknowledge an attempt at reconciliation.
I recognize that the "civil discussion" rule has been in place for a long time but I'm concerned about how it is evolving. Its intention is clearly stated to permit people to participate in the discussion rather than to "divide." The problem is that someone can always take offense to something. I think that any form of language policing is a very dangerous road to go down in general and this is one of those "open ended rules" that is very difficult to keep in the bottle. The big problem is that everyone's standards of "decency" differ. When one side makes their "decency" the law, everyone else who doesn't share that standard suffers.
At the end of the day, this mechanism... this rule... whilst originally meant to include everyone... can become a threat to to the mechanism of communication itself by alienating "unpopular" words and behaviors. This is precisely why Reddit and other platforms are failing. When we alienate one person for an unpopular opinion, we eventually alienate all people because someone will take offense to something no matter how innocuous.
Most people don't like the "N-word" which is what stirred up this ban hammer festival in the first place. But where do we stop? This is like a canary in the coal mine.
Think about it this way: What happens when an atheist decides Christianity is offensive? Do we ban talk of that?
What happens when the FBI shills claim Q is offensive? Do we void our entire forum by rejecting Q?
Banning for speech must be treated the same way as the US government treats nuclear weapons. It's a form of "mutually assured destruction" that must be treated with the UTMOST caution. That's the hard lesson that any moderating group has to keep in mind. You are literally wielding a tool with the power to destroy the forum itself. Think carefully and use it wisely.
P.S. People are really sensitized to this NOW because we've seen this "meltdown" occur several times. It gets annoying, really, to think "yet another Reddit."
Translation: "Use a conditional phrasing rather than a declarative phrasing because it's offensive to my feelings."
Fine, I'll play your little game. "We have observed that you have been going down the road of language policing and it is creating concerns amongst some members that we're repeating the mistakes that made Reddit the CCP controlled platform that it is now."
How's that? Suitably facile and flowery for your tastes?
Fair enough. I'm compelled to acknowledge an attempt at reconciliation.
I recognize that the "civil discussion" rule has been in place for a long time but I'm concerned about how it is evolving. Its intention is clearly stated to permit people to participate in the discussion rather than to "divide." The problem is that someone can always take offense to something. I think that any form of language policing is a very dangerous road to go down in general and this is one of those "open ended rules" that is very difficult to keep in the bottle. The big problem is that everyone's standards of "decency" differ. When one side makes their "decency" the law, everyone else who doesn't share that standard suffers.
At the end of the day, this mechanism... this rule... whilst originally meant to include everyone... can become a threat to to the mechanism of communication itself by alienating "unpopular" words and behaviors. This is precisely why Reddit and other platforms are failing. When we alienate one person for an unpopular opinion, we eventually alienate all people because someone will take offense to something no matter how innocuous.
Most people don't like the "N-word" which is what stirred up this ban hammer festival in the first place. But where do we stop? This is like a canary in the coal mine.
Think about it this way: What happens when an atheist decides Christianity is offensive? Do we ban talk of that?
What happens when the FBI shills claim Q is offensive? Do we void our entire forum by rejecting Q?
Banning for speech must be treated the same way as the US government treats nuclear weapons. It's a form of "mutually assured destruction" that must be treated with the UTMOST caution. That's the hard lesson that any moderating group has to keep in mind. You are literally wielding a tool with the power to destroy the forum itself. Think carefully and use it wisely.
P.S. People are really sensitized to this NOW because we've seen this "meltdown" occur several times. It gets annoying, really, to think "yet another Reddit."