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.

This is a place for discussion, among other things, specialized for and friendly towards feedism. That does not exlude debating worldviews, since you put it like that.

Each person has a theory. And how they subjectivise (how they personally choose to "read".) and then describe their experiences matters a lot. Thats just to point out the relevance of what i like to talk about, with peoples' experiences. Im really interested in these theories / philosophies.

I dont know if you suffer from that, id need to have a conversation about controversial topics with you, to find out.

Do i appreciate the community?

Yes, i do. But at the same time, i know this community doesnt exist in a vacuum. Its prone to most of the problems the larger society currently has. I would like to be able to debate, especially about so called sensitive topics, but people here (as people everywhere!!) seem to suffer from cognitive dishonesty. On top of that, if this place has an ideology its propably a liberal one and thats sometimes problematic in a bunch of technical ways (In moderation for example - the rules are too simplistic, etc).

What do you think?

Its best to think about it in this way: If you have something to add to a discussion, that likely makes you interested to add it! The fact that the post has been inactive for a long while is, oftentimes, irrelevant.

There is a plethora of ways to seek a post. There is a search function, then you can also access them from profiles' activity pages, etc.

But even if someone were to dig into it...



Why is that the case? Spooky because someone got an interest which makes them search through the forums? I really dont think its spooky!

I dont understand why necroposting is seen as something bad in the first place.

Personal ads aside. Why not add something in a discussion under a post that has not reached a conclusion? (And a lot of posts remain without a conclusion) Why care if it is even 1 year dead? Even if the original people are long gone, you can't limit all the potential interest of the discussion to only them! To say that, definetely, nobody else will be ever interested to see the discussion and then some conclusion!