Robert Gentel wrote:
This thread is being started to continue an off-topic discussion from this thread: http://able2know.org/topic/158723-214
The core of Occom Bill's argument is that certain members should be banned, mainly for having opinions he says constitutes "support for rape".
I believe that able2know should be a free marketplace of ideas and I do not think we should ban people on the basis of their opinions, no matter how distasteful they may be, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of other here for peaceful coexistence as they express them.
However not all think the ideals of an intellectual marketplace are the most important ones, and value the free exchange of ideas less so than a certain forum decorum they prefer. This thread is intended to discuss this core issue: should members be banned based on the opinions they express? If someone posts a viewpoint that is considered offensive enough, should this result in their banning?
Couldn't resist exaggerating my argument to stack the deck, could you?
What Occom Bill has been advocating is some
level of moderation that could eventually result in banning. This stems from watching relentless ruthless verbal attacks on rape victims, with a very clear trolling purpose of causing emotional injury to several posters on a the linked thread, for sport. The real question should be several:
1. Can relentless spamming of a thread with hateful mockery be considered trolling?
2. If so, should any
steps be taken to diminish the effect of said trolling?
3. In the event said trolling persists, beyond warnings, should the habitual offender be sanctioned in hopes of discouraging the deliberate targeting of innocents for abuse?
We’re not talking about differences of opinions here, we’re talking about deliberate targeting of innocents for abuse, with the clear intent of causing emotional injury.
(Between Robert’s slant and my own, you should get the gist of it.)