Actually they are demanding censorship here every time they hit the report button.
That is a nice platitude. The rules here control everyone and their interactions on these forums. You and others claim you aren't for censorship yet seem triggered by even a discussion about the rules. Why do you prefer to operate in the dark?
Posting what is morally correct is not "triggered." That was an out-of-place remark. You are now attempting to place me on the defensive because you are losing the virtue of the argument. You should not be talking about me. Should I turn around and try to make it about you? What does that accomplish?
I am not going to do that. Then it devolves into an insult contest.
Did you come here to debate politics or to have an insult contest.
I am here to debate politics. You wanted to know if slurs are OK. I posted the morally correct response. No, slurs are not OK. No amount of attempted justification makes wrong right. You tried to twist it around to somehow justify slurs. I held firm to the moral high ground. No, slurs are not OK, even if "the other started it." That's immature. Not a justification.
Wrong being done does not make further wrong OK. If it was wrong in the first place, it is wrong as a response. Previous wrong does not make wrong less wrong. Wrong is wrong. Wrong will always be wrong.
Mutually respectful debate requires two parties to show basic respect to one another. If either one does not, then it becomes lopsided. If someone allows another to disrespect them, they become the enabler for online abuse. It is not productive to enable online abuse. The only logical response, if both cannot agree to mutually respectful debate, is to cut off talking to people who insist on using disrespectful slurs.
There is no winning possible in a lopsided conversation. It is a waste of time.
And you cannot win by joining them.
Posters may be reminded of the importance of basic respect in hopes of establishing an agreed standard for conversation. If they do not acquiesce then nothing further can be done with them. The best course of action is to cut it off. If the sleight is egregious enough and a clear violation of the site rules, the offending post should be reported. The moderation team cannot address every sleight, but they want to know about flagrant rule violations, and they will take appropriate action.
One of the problems at an online site is that moderation teams are incapable of addressing every slight violation. People of less than the utmost morals take advantage of that to "see what they can get away with." Such an approach is cheap and tawdry, and detracts from the quality of the site. But it is very common. "You cut me, I'll cut you, but we won't cut too deep so we get away with it." Blood is blood. It detracts from good quality debate. Many justify it because "everyone else is doing it." Actually that is not true. If you pay attention everyone else is not doing that.
So it all boils down to whether you want to be part of the problem or part of the solution.
If everyone were part of the solution, we would have the highest quality debate site possible.
That's not the case. A few trouble makers go a long way to infect others. Those who slip into it become part of the problem. Do * Not * Take * The * Bait. Recognize it for what it is. Call it out. Do not reward abuse by enabling it. Don't take things personally. People are trying to get you to crack. Simply revert to the third person and state what's going on. If people won't drop it just cut it off with them and move on to another discussion. You don't even have to tell them. Let's have a better site. Don't feed the trolls.
www.grammarly.com
