Posters

[bomber]

I've been thinking about this... pondering it.

This is a forum... and we all should be considered equals when it comes to free speech. In real life when we enter into heated debates we look for clues, body language, differences. And if we're going 'all in' then we use them to gain an advantage, undermine and hurt. But equally we can chose to use those clues as guides so as to not go 'to far', to understand how close to the line we can go.

We don't have those clues here... so we don't know if the poster is an amputee, is maybe fragile due to mental illness or a minor.... 99% of the time we don't even know the sex of the poster just their username.

We think we're all equals but we're not.... we come with our baggage.

If a poster uses bad language, then surely he's giving agreement for its use ?
Neither he nor the moderators should at a later time pull out the "he's only 17" card after he's been replied to in kind...... afterall 99% of us don't know the posters age.

Equally if a poster posts contentious issues on a forum, you're giving permission that you wish to debate it and as SkyBoat put it it..
"You will see them arguing, cajoling, attacking, exhorting, defending, analyzing, exploring, elucidating hundreds of topics and issues but with a command of the language that was always civil."
But that doesn't mean you can't hurt someone's feelings especially if they're of a sensitive nature.

In real life if we know the persons character, we know it's not worth the grief 'like mud wrestling pigs'... so we don't bother.

Overtime on a forum you can gather this knowledge but it's not easy as people lurk for long periods and then make 'drive by shootings' either in the middle of a debate or well after its finished to reignite it.

We have our own personal ignore system, simply dont read peoples posts. But this is a forum and as such the majority of us are loath to do this... as reading only one side of the debate gives a very myopic view.

So what's to do ?

We want a better forum... yet this has been set up identical to others. This forum claims to be the home of the disenfranchised so we know what type of person is coming here, people with opinions who are not afraid to voice them even in the face of a ban.

Shouldn't we therefore protect people as well as allow those that are more robust to debate... shouldn't we protect a vulnerable person be it underage or fragile from entering too deep into a debate, from using bad language.

"If the kitchens too hot, get out"

I'm asking because I think there's a requirement for us to know if a person we're debating with is a black or white belt.

Simon.

[SkyBoat]

@Simon-- Now that you begin to ponder the rights of the minority as equivalent to those of the majority, of those of the seen as well as the unseen, you begin to write with a fresh perspective about the complexities of free speech. Continue pondering. I'm very interested in what you have to say.

SkyBoat