D
Deleted member 88
Guest
My point was, I have never seen anyone make an actual threat on anyone’s life. Either another user or someone else. Or threaten to commit a criminal/terrorist act.
My point was, I have never seen anyone make an actual threat on anyone’s life. Either another user or someone else. Or threaten to commit a criminal/terrorist act.
Uh Zoe, that's not what we signed up for.This is exactly correct. The whole point of this website is to have a place for a Viennese coffee house type format where Trotsky and a monarchist can sit down over a cup of coffee and have a polite debate. If the waiters in a 1910 vintage Viennese coffee house would have kicked you out for your behaviour, then you will also be punished for your behaviour here.
Uh Zoe, that's not what we signed up for.
There is a difference between wanting civility, in that shit-flinging and such are not the norm, and wanting to pretend this is some high-brow, snooty tea house.
Yea i hope i'm not forced to use super flowery language
Yea i hope i'm not forced to use super flowery language
No, Zoe, you showed what you truly want in that example, and it's not a good image.If a broke communist could afford to have coffee there, it was hardly a high-brow snooty tea house. I apologise for perhaps carrying the example too far.
How about a pub?I think she meant diversity of ideas. Which is fine, I’m all for that.
My concern, is that the tea house might become too strict for the communist and monarchist to you know debate in.
Civility seems like the camels nose of SJW convergence. It's always " can we have a little civility" at first, with the meaning of this civility always being stretched further and further in a leftward direction.
Oh I have seen how you and others have been, and still are being treated, on SB and our sister sites. Itr just seems that those here will think Power corrupts, especially with you saying that you are trying to get others to come here AND to sister sites. It seems like you are trying to make this a place where Hurtful words to one person are banned and everyone needs to be nice.
TLDR: If i cant say Ship is an Asshole in a thread when it should be said that he is. Is this a site of free speech?
I being a Soldier know that Free speech one can have, but what people don't like is when there is consequence. That is what this is sure, but having such a broad term as civility, can lead to people not wanting to talk any more and start to perhaps do things that are worse for them. Such as talking with Train Dodger. My civility is somewhat screwy there, but the reason is, is because I feel like one should be a little harserh to try and help that. I don't hate
I think she meant diversity of ideas. Which is fine, I’m all for that.
My concern, is that the tea house might become too strict for the communist and monarchist to you know debate in.
No, Zoe, you showed what you truly want in that example, and it's not a good image.
It justifies every concern about overzealous enforcement that has been leveled here.
Are you responding to Bacle?You are taking the example far too literally.
We have civility rules, they are publicly posted, and they pretty much all boil down to 'don't be a douche'. Argue as passionately as you wish, but when you become a douche, don't be surprised if you get smacked for it, either with a rolled up newspaper or a ban.
Ideally we want people who passionately disagree on subjects to be able to argue their points, then at the end of the day agree that everything else being equal the Dodgers still are the worst team in the history of baseball.
Is that too much to ask for?
As someone who believes in divinely ordained matriarchy, I've politely not raised my hand once to interrupt a great deal of patriarchal consensus among the posters. Do you really think that's my intent with what I said, when things like that are factored in? I'm not trying to make this into the Aphrodite Cocktail Bar circa 2005.
Need I remind you are certain 'f***st' quip and how that hurt this place?You are taking the example far too literally.
We have civility rules, they are publicly posted, and they pretty much all boil down to 'don't be a douche'. Argue as passionately as you wish, but when you become a douche, don't be surprised if you get smacked for it, either with a rolled up newspaper or a ban.
Ideally we want people who passionately disagree on subjects to be able to argue their points, then at the end of the day agree that everything else being equal the Dodgers still are the worst team in the history of baseball.
Is that too much to ask for?
In regards to the matter of civility in posting a user's reaction to news like recent going ons of Prince Harry's sad behavior with his wife and Mayor Ted Wheeler's cowardly behavior that I would call them a cuck would you prefer less potshot insult reactions of their character like that? The majority of my posts is to share links to news where I would in many cases leave some pithy or insulting response to people I clearly show contempt for.Plain talking is your decision. Even swearing is not banned, though it is informally strongly discouraged in the one general community subforum, and always has been. However, directing slurs or charges of extremism without proof at other posters will result in infractions.