X_Larsson:
To sum it up, the many interventions by moderators are that some people are "offended" by something, even if it is not personal attacks or denigrating statements?
Alternatively, shut down preventively by moderators before anyone complains?
So discussions are not really discussions, more of somewhat uniform flow of inputs, morally approved, in the "virtues" currently "in fashion" of more conformistic parts of the society? And avoiding to potentially "hurt someone" is consistently more important than discussing the topics? (There are clearly some people that should be more protected than others.)
It is good if the contents of these applied (but not always stated) rules are clear, which they obviously are not, by looking at the numbers of stopped discussions (as I referred to in my initial question).
Again, this is posted as I see that many discussions (that I not posted in) develop in very odd directions.
Munchies:
Who hurt you?
X_Larsson:
Haha, the oh so predictible ad hominem! I am not hurt, and I have posted one question, the same as now is posted by @Letters and numbers; "When a thread gets locked, say why."
I do not care about politics, and I have only had one topic of mine shut down (obviously without any stated reason).
But in the interest of retaining some dynamics and interaction, having clear examples and justification would be good.
I dunno man. The snark and quotations around certain words suggests an unresolved personal trauma.
Would you like a virtual hug? Do you want to talk about it? A burden shared is a burden halved.