![Irony Much? [1231x1003 - 154KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/H6mBBc.jpg){kind=link}
I abhor taking the Lord's name in vain but this is just confirmation that his site will ban criticism of israel.
Free speech is like free will, I don't blame God when bad people do bad things to good people in His creation, nor would it be logical to blame a web admin for the words of his users. Therefore I think you can be a christian and host a free speech website without banning blasphemy.
I think you’d have to come out from the outset and ban profanity, with a word list that simply ******’s stuff out. But allow any ideas otherwise. Be lax on work arounds too like “sh!t” or “fkn”
There is no reason to ban any of it, what needs to be patrolled is behavior, there are certain tactics which can be used to manipulate in many ways and those are what moderation should be chasing, disingenuous actors.
Also The only profanity is blasphemy, the only swear words are spoken in vows and oaths, the only curse words are in wishing ill on others, pejoratives and foul language exist but these euphemisms with allusions to biblical definitions of sin are an invention of english nobility, literally duchesses from 4-5 centuries ago who deemed themselves speech police.
Point well taken. What’s the strategy for moderating behavior or disingenuous tactics?
I think people should just accept the obvious fact: there is no free speech. It's an ideal. If you have a group convening on the basis of shared values, then certain things are obviously out of bounds. How about child porn? How about gratuitous torture porn? If you are promoting a Christian site, then certain obscenities against your God, Christ, and perhaps the Holy mother are going to be banned.
If I start a site that's about rock music. Then somebody who comes there just to start shit with rock music fans, who obviously hates the genre and disrupts the flow for everyone else, is going to get banned. Duh.
A great deal of this has nothing to do with stifling conversation, as such, but having a reason to curate your user base and eliminate people who are there to subvert plainly, i.e. they have no interest in conversation, only slander and chaos.
This idea that you owe it to other people to adopt literal free speech standards is fucking retarded. If you come into my home, you aren't going to insult my wife. I'm going to throw your ass out the fucking door.
I think most of the problems people have with sites like Reddit today pertain to how capricious the rules are, and how they've changed in real time. If a site sets itself up on the base of a certain rule set, applies those equally, and doesn't change to accommodate some moral purity spiral, ala modern liberalism, then you're fine. It's mostly that the current 'hive mind' is growing like a virus and the rules are changing so fast that intelligible, coherent conversation across two political poles has become impossible.
People who cry free speech are often just pissed because they've been marginalized. In that sense, so many people here are no better than the Left. You don't like that they have the big fancy website with hundreds of thousands of hits - mostly, you cry out free speech because you resent how many people don't want to hear what you're saying.
There is no free will either, we are enslaved to our morals and the concept of free will is just an idea.
It's structurally limited, in practice, just as free speech is. It's part of becoming a member of a group that you lose perfect freedom, in any respect. Part of what defines every group is how you lose those freedoms - but most people would rather think of it as a sacrifice or civil submission rather than a loss.
(post is archived)