This is only partially true: some speech is criminal and does not only not deserve support, nor freedom.
Of course.
I should also add that conduct not rising to the level of a ban does not mean that it is acceptable or should be encouraged. Everyone should attempt to be polite and reasonable. Sometimes that is not going to happen. Generally when that fails it is temporary, and those involved can work it out among themselves. Sometimes warnings are given (vometia being a little quicker on that than I tend to be), and in very rare cases, bans.
Originally Posted by Squesing
Maybe you ignore that "free speech" is not total.
No, generally that is assumed to be the case when talking about free speech. Very few people think fraud, etc, should be classified as speech.
Originally Posted by Squesing
Have you ever heard about Popper's paradox of the tolerance, anyway?
Yes, I have, and I've seen the full passage, which is rather different than some people try to promote (that it is necessary to be intolerant) from the short version.
“I do not imply for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force...”
Thus far, force has not been required for suppression.
Originally Posted by Squesing
And I am talking about the job to be human, before being a moderator. You fail in both, anyway.
You do realise, if I adopted your advice for moderating the forum, you would be banned, right?
So insisting 3 times on being discriminating, without any apology or retreat, is not something you should ban in your judge. What should he do for being banned and his message edited, just for curiosity? Istigate suicide or terrorism? I actually am astonished by your capacity of denial and put every evidence in a relativistic and vague field.
So I assume that who's wrong are the other moderated forums of serious and affordable companies like blizzard, Microsoft, or any of the other hundreds of moderated forums that ban or at least cancel the messages of racist and discriminating people.
Also your interpretation of Popper is so reductive, cherrypicky and biased that my philosophy book autoburn itself the exact time I read your words.
I have no problem in being banned if you ban Tuco too. Off course i am saying hard word, they are for sure justified by your unrespective behaviour, but if you are looking for some sort of stupid and superficial form of coerence go ahead. Ban me, but ban Tuco too.
The important is the message that passes: discriminating autism is not something you can do (multiple times and without any form of apology, instead he underlined the exact contrary of apology), and most of all that autism is not necessarily a disease.
