Now that you mention it, yes! I also am grateful that FF does all it does for free!

It "sounds like", that is the argument? Really?

And no, its not! I dont think racism is rational to begin with. I dont want racism to do anything, because it always makes things worse, i know that!

I dont do nazi apologetics, i just think people focus exessively on the person who happens to be on the top and completely ignore the conditions that allowed him to be there. Thats dangerous! Same applies with the situation today. Are you aware of what the so called "think tanks" have done to US politics and how dangerous they were all along, for example? Ive never seen people complain about the control they exert onto politicians! Would i be a Trump apologist for saying that Trump was not the facilitator of all this crazyness?

I also tend to respect other people's needs and when they need me to stop doing something, i stop it. But that has to be communicated first you know?

The example i gave with moderators asking for proof is the most realisitic example i can think of.

I have a suspicion most of the abuse happens in private. That's because a lot of the time the abuse is narcissistic and narcissists are self-aware about not showing their true colors in public.

With public harassment things are very simple because everyone, aside from incels codnems it. No justification, or hell, not even an accusation needs to happen. Except for legal reasons (like so, police can arrest the person who harassed, if that is suposed to happen). Beyond that we'd talk about systemic problems.

I don't know why you bring twitter as an example, people there go through much more abuse, missinformation, etc.

Even offense can be justified. For example if you accuse someone of abuse, and that is a negative quality (which of course it is), that -definitionally- is an insult to his character. The fact that its true doesnt negate that. Why is this importand, though?

Because you *have* to judge if an offense is justified or not. That may be easy if you have first experience of the event that lead to the offense, but its hard if you dont. Most people judge with what feels right, not what is logically right.

All these details are why i think the rules are too shallow btw. They don’t consider all this nuance and its left to the mods' personal judgement ability, which no matter who the moderator is, it will always have room for improvement.

There is more to add too. For example i would really appreciate it if this community cared more for the mental health of its members in order to help them become resilient, rather than take an approach which leads to *only* catering to peoples inabilities, and often those inabilities compromise the social health of a community (leading to people being bitter about each other, etc)

I made a distinction between the two. You ignored that?

Im always open to criticism, but i would like to be criticised for the things i actually do, not for the illusions other people might have about me...

Here, problems begin. Specifically, what does "discrimination" means? I think the argument you make here is problematic because "discrimination" might include too much stuff. Reporting someone for racist behavior is, by definition, discrimination against racist behavior. Or excluding narcissistic people from positions of power (this never happens btw, but it would be very good) is discrimination against narcissism. You dont need to wait for harm to be done in order to act to prevent it.

Im not saying that discrimination is good, im saying that it depends on context. Is it done rationally? Is it done ethically, to make peoples lives generally better? Can you justify it?

What we usually call discrimination (i.e. Against gender, race, ethnicity and so on) is bad because its unreasonable, unethical and cannot be justified without logical fallacies. Not *merely* because its discrimination.

To conclude with this, yes i get what you (propably?) mean, but its extremely importand how exactly you choose to word it.


About the second thing you said... Nobody needs to justify how they feel. However usually what happens is people confuse what their feelings are with what might have caused it,and they often times talk about the second one. And that might manifest in an offense (accusing someone of their behavior). When someone makes an offense they should also justify it. That already happens to some degree, for example if you report someone, the mods ask you for proof. Thats justification!

(btw wanna continue this conversation, elsewhere? )

I think its not okay to let these happen. I dont disagree with you here. I even think you're right to be dogmatic about certain opinions. (For example, harassment of women - it should never be allowed to happen) I think we would disagree for example on what is bigotry if we were to go in detail about it,and how it should be handled. That would be an interesting conversation to have!

I'm not sure how to engage with that. Do you think wanting to debate is unreasonable? Do you think that people generally dont suffer from cognitive dishonest? It would be useful if you were to point out what is wrong with what i said.

Time & place i think is not the problem here. Its that often people don’t like to be called out when they're wrong.

I also choosed liberal because im aware of its atomizing logic. Im not sure libertarian ideology has that in the same degree. There is nothing hilarous about that, i dont know why you find it as such.