View Single Post
Old March 3rd, 2018, 09:40 PM   #8
Voice_Of_Unreason
Awesome Poster
 
Voice_Of_Unreason's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: July 7, 2016
Location: Irrationality
Gender: Male
Default Re: Harsh Rules Agianst Discrimination

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewLeafsFan View Post
I don't believe that claiming that you are 'miseducated' is an acceptable reason for hate speech.
But why? Because it triggers you?

Look, people make offensive and miseducated claims against my own beliefs all the time. Not to name names, but there are certain users here who, purposely or not, commonly make sweeping negative assumptions and accusations towards Christianity, of which I am a Christian. But do you see me going into a rage and demanding bans because someone says God is a heartless monster with rage issues? No, you don't. Instead I just ask them why they believe that, ask them to back up those beliefs, and then I attempt to show them why they are wrong. If they still believe that fallacy, well then that's their problem, not mine, and I continue on with life. I say all that just to express my confusion as to why you think posts you deem offensive or miseducated need to be removed immediately, even though I and almost everyone else here copes fine with them.

Quote:
I would not expect mods to read every post before they are published. I realize that only so much can be done. But there are several members that I have reported and have seen their posts removed up to 5 or 10 times. I just don't understand why they are still able to be members.
I will give you that the rules need stricter punishment. I have advocated for that myself, since like you I've noticed users who repeatedly break the rules keep doing it without much more than a finger-wag from the mods. If there was stricter punishment, up to and including bans, then I believe there would be less troll posters. So on that topic we agree, but that really isn't your main point here.

Quote:
If you are debating something you should be able to back your opinion with a fact, example, or something. I'm not complaining because I disagree with certain opinions, but because the language, and offensive/incriminating statements are unacceptable.
I fail to see why certain words or statements in a factual debate would somehow make it unacceptable. As long as the intent of the terms isn't to offend, then I see no reason to censor it. Those who are triggered at the mere use of certain words, then that is their own problem they need to deal with. We shouldn't be censoring VT members because of an overly-sensitive minority.
Voice_Of_Unreason is offline   Reply With Quote