X_Larsson:
So more ad hominem being dished out (but not by me, but by the "caring" and "tolerant" people, again?), while the straight forward question from myself and @Letters and Numbers remains un-addressed.

And it would be helpful to see the justification given as a final post if a discussion is shut down.

Can we by the way assume that ad hominem to the level used against me and some others is "free for all" to use without any repercussions? Is that the core and spirit of this board of "open" and "tolerant" people? Today it seems to be the way.

Munchies:


Darling, I believe you and I have very different recollections of how that conversation went. That said, do you really believe this is the wisest way to go about this?

Because while I have no desire to rehash what happened beyond what I've already said, I can't promise the same for others. If you honestly believe that you are the victim of ad hominem attacks (though I don't believe you are), wouldn't calling attention to that previous altercation put a target on your for ad hominem attacks?

There's this thing called the Streisand effect. You should look into it.

Igetthejoke:
Jfc gaslighting and victim blaming

X_Larsson:
So more ad hominem being dished out (but not by me, but by the "caring" and "tolerant" people, again?), while the straight forward question from myself and @Letters and Numbers remains un-addressed.

And it would be helpful to see the justification given as a final post if a discussion is shut down.

Can we by the way assume that ad hominem to the level used against me and some others is "free for all" to use without any repercussions? Is that the core and spirit of this board of "open" and "tolerant" people? Today it seems to be the way.

Malvineous:
Thanks, guys. I just hope it will help OP, and anyone else who's struggling.

Angiefoodcake:
Hi Malvineous! I appreciated your detailed advice and others' too. I was a little social the past few days. Speaking sentences instead of a few words. It's going to be hard but I rather screw up than be stuck depressed/lonely. Sometimes we gotta get out of our comfort zone.

Malvineous:
Nice, that's good to hear. It can be really hard being that vulnerable, but the end result is so, so worth it. Just keep making those baby steps and you'll get there in time.

Morbidly A Beast:
I had to familiarize myself with his thread that got locked, he made generalizations about women, munchies and letters and numbers corrected him and he had a baby boy temper tantrum when I told him to take the L and apologize, sounds like the typical thread that gets locked down some person makes ridiculous claims they get corrected and they double down and refuse to correct themselves.

Dude is just an incel with dumb theories about women

MarieTrans:
I could tell it was a joke yea

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.

MarieTrans:
My name is Marie and I'm trans, ta-da

M05Padding:
Are you sure? I think we need more context.

Munchies:
That's cringe of you.

M05Padding:
Me? No worries, she know I was joking. 😀

Thepiggygirls:
The way we combat this is by sitting in the shower 🤣 then you only have to worry about getting up once and don't have to stand the whole time!

MarieTrans:
My name is Marie and I'm trans, ta-da

M05Padding:
Are you sure? I think we need more context.

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.