« First « Previous Comments 4 - 35 of 35 Search these comments
Eric Holder saysLooks like when one door for free speech opens (Twitter) another one closes (P.net).
Everyone knows the rule: no deliberately personal insults.
why?
This is against freedom of speech.
FarmersWon sayswhy?
This is against freedom of speech.
I agree to some extent. The issue is that when one person feels they were really wronged in a thread, they do something stupid and bring the whole site down because of their actions. I've had the ability to moderate here and I tend to let it go. Doxxing and personal threats are the big ones I'd moderate. Insulting another user just makes the person insulting look like a dip shit (not picking sides on this, just stating how I feel about it). Make me laugh honestly.
I've been guilty of being a dick to users here, but I've backed off on that. If someone needs to be that petty there are other personal issues. No one online should get under your skin that much to be a dick. Pick a neutral site and have a fist fight. Not joking. Back your words up. Forum/Twitter/FB/etc. trolls are just pussies generally that got their asses ki...
Insulting another user just makes the person insulting look like a dip shit
Yet I'm posting this, hence the title (probably a bug)
why?
This is against freedom of speech.
Persistence spaming personal insult is other matter...
Also threats and extreme vulgarity is unacceptable.
All the kings will be happy if personal insults are banned.
extreme vulgarity is unacceptable.
You can insult public figures who are not on this site. The rule is about other users of the site.
I'm just asking for people to stay on a debatable issue and not get hung up about the other person personally. No one's mind was ever changed by direct vulgar insults.
Vulgarity is under the free speech umbrella.
I respectfully disagree. Vulgarity is under the free speech umbrella. I may not like how one chooses to express themselves, but I defend their right to say it.
Sticks and stones and all that...
Personal threats is a grey area... in a (mostly) anonymous forum the risk of a threat being realized are thankfully low.
Patrick's site, Patrick's rules. This isn't a democracy. He can ban anyone for any reason. It's his namesake, not your or mine.
That said, this place allows for a range of opinions which is why I lurk so much.
There is an innate human tendency to vilify those we disagree with. That's the wrong way to argue, because it only hardens positions and makes people deaf to your legitimate arguments.
anonymous forums are great to bring out entrenched interests or habits and help correct asymmetries in power structure the elites have
vilification of tyrants and their lackeys in needed every second of the day.
The problem with an anonymous forum is that no one feels worried about deliberately insulting people they never meet. So I think this rule against deliberate personal insults of other users is needed to keep the discussion from degenerating into crap that no one wants to read and which does nothing at all to help resolve or clarify issues.
Sure, but calling Trump a senile, racist, fascist really didn't help much when an actually senile, racist, fascist was placed into the executive office by the CIA. Now they have a new problem, the legitimacy of the US government is at risk. Even the dullest people are starting to wonder if the ballot is legitimate.
I asked a friend at Facebook how Facebook handles such things, and he said they don't have to, because users simply unfriend anyone who deliberately insults them.
I think this rule against deliberate personal insults of other users is needed to keep the discussion from degenerating into crap that no one wants to read
When you have the wrong idea, calling them stupid doesn't allow them to figure out they do.
Maybe somebody DOES have a stupid opinion, but for God's sakes, explain it to everybody else and to them.
Right. I don't mind if someone says that an argument is stupid. But then you say the person is stupid, you're no longer talking about the argument.
Right. I don't mind if someone says that an argument is stupid. But then you say the person is stupid, you're no longer talking about the argument.
The reason there's free speech is to protect the truth, not lies. Moderated speech is to protect lies.
Patrick saysRight. I don't mind if someone says that an argument is stupid. But then you say the person is stupid, you're no longer talking about the argument.
How is that possible?
Aren't all of us were fact checking the liberal fact checkers during election?
Maybe you can even get them to agree eventually and then you're likely to have a new friend rather than a new enemy.
Once it goes south, I've generally found it doesn't get better.
You then may post the resulting encrypted message right here, for me to decrypt/read.
To be clear: I don't plan to exploit this bug. Let's call it "honor system ban".
If anyone decides to p-2-p to me, here's my public key:
-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----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-----END PUBLIC KEY-----
You can encrypt your message by doing something like this:
> openssl rsautl -encrypt -inkey mostly-reader-pub.pem -pubin -in message-to-mostly-reader.txt | openssl base64
- assuming that you save your message to me in "message-to-mostly-reader.txt" and my public key in "mostly-reader-pub.pem" (of course you should know better than put it in ~/.ssh)
You then may post the resulting encrypted message right here, for me to decrypt/read.
Good luck in your future endeavors.