Should able2know ban people for having untoward opinions?

And if you can't think of a solution it may be due to a fundamental conflict of interest that no other mind is going to be able to resolve.

... we can't have both a free marketplace of ideas and no idiots.

So depending on just what the perceived problem may be, there may be no solution that does not inexorably compromise other ideals to an unacceptable degree.

I do know at least this: it is impossible to please everyone, and even quite difficult to completely please just one person on a forum. On some level I think a degree of perceived problems is inevitable (i.e. no solution to all problems) so we'll always have problems of some sort, and it's just a matter of balancing the different problems and how acutely they affect the forum because solving a problem for one person will almost always create a problem for someone else at this size.

I don't think we should stop anyone from expressing their views or opinions just because we don't agree with them. It can be a real eye opener to realize some of these views even exist. I'd rather know they are out there.

Aren't you trained in the sciences? If yes, you know that the simplest explanation that fits all the facts is to be preferred to the complex one. If the term "colored" isn't acceptable to you, please provide a single-word, descriptive, understandable, PC-compliant alternative. I will wait.

realjohnboy wrote:

"Black." That is what I hear in multi-racial conversations.
"Colored" is a word with baggage from decades ago. "African-American" is too cumbersome. "Nigger"

That leaves out persons of the Indian subcontinent, the continent of South America, and countless others - colored includes them.

One of the goals of our moderation policy is for moderators not to be big stick wielders. On many forums moderators are visible authoritarian figures and invariably these generate a lot of personality conflicts. But here we try to do things less abrasively and moderators do their jobs behind the scenes, but that doesn't mean there are no moderators here. There are moderators here and they remove posts and ban members (mostly spammers) daily.

Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

Well at least the last few pages provide an iullustration of the endless folly that inexorably follows censorship in any form, as a mere laps in PC speech degenerates into endless grinding of mouse turds into ever smaller......

Since this thread has gone right off track with what to call people who are not white...

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I would say that threats of personal harm are over the line, as would be calls for violence.

Those are illegal acts, and of course cross our lines. But that isn't even in the same city of what is being discussed (which at it's most personally harassing is just insensitive doubt cast on a personal story).

Person B wrote:

I catch hell for saying this in the childhood sexual abuse survivor community, but I have come to the conclusion that often abuse is nearly a blessing.

You are such a reprobate. If I were married to you, I'd kill you - for fear you would give our children a "blessing."

B-A-N-G

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I would say that threats of personal harm are over the line, as would be calls for violence.

Those are illegal acts, and of course cross our lines. But that isn't even in the same city of what is being discussed (which at it's most personally harassing is just insensitive doubt cast on a personal story).

So, no, i don't see why i should be restricted, and see no reason not to point out that political rectitude is a tool which people across the political spectrum use to sneer at those with whom they disagree, and in an attempt to flay those who stray from accepted doctrine.