Having partied with you in person, I would have seen right through your mock insult, and laughed along with you. 😀
Glad you know me that well, friend.
🙂
The insult you may regard as needless, somebody else might look at with relief and say, "It's about time somebody stood up to that prick." By reporting such things, what you are supporting is a policy of censorship, and the repression of free speech. If you're okay with that, then there's little to discuss.
True enough. And my beliefs in free speech and the role of censorship are not cut and dry, but recognize the importance of context. I'm all for the ability to protest, and being allowed to do so in places and ways that you have the opportunity to convey your message. I believe people have a right to protest things they believe are not right or unfair.
At the same time, I believe when I go to a movie that I have the right to hear the music and dialogue with a minimum of interference from the other patrons. If I have some random bunch of hooligans behind me shouting about this or that, loudly cracking jokes, generally making a ruckus that disrupts my ability to hear the movie, and when people try to shush them so that they can hear the movie, the hooligans respond with insults and curses, I believe I have the right to inform management, and that if management fails to quiet them under threat of removal, that I am entitled to a refund, because it is impossible to have the movie conveyed in such an environment. Under those circumstances, I am a supporter of censorship, because the hooligan's actions disrupts communication rather than benefits it.
Seeing your response below, perhaps I should have used the theater as my analogy...
I confess to being equally baffled by your rationale, Cap. Do you seriously equate unpalatable comments on a computer screen with bullets that can maim and kill? I think a more apt analogy would be, if you offer unflattering remarks, don't be surprised if the police come and remove your tongue.
It's only fitting if you equate verbal abuse with physical violence, and perhaps you do, and if so, that's certainly your right. I can't, however. That kind of "logic" conjures up pictures of debate teams showing up with AK-47 assault rifles. Comedians like Jay Leno would be jailed for serial assault, and many politicians on the both sides of the aisle would be convicted for attempted presidential assasination. I simply can't equate the expressing of ideas via printed words, even insulting ones, as in any way tantamount to a physical assault.
I can see where you might confuse this. My comparison was one equating only
the nature of interaction in each case (aggressor = aggressor, censor = police, etc.), and you thought I was trying to equate
severity of action and weight of repercussions (verbal insult = physical injury, words = bullets, etc.).
No. I thought I'd clarified the matter enough by identifying the analogy myself as "over-the-top", but perhaps not. Sorry about that. Now you know otherwise. Please adjust assessments accordingly.
Why, I'm more than happy to oblidge.
How about the analogy of a repressive government who forbids the townspeople from expressing certain ideas. They encourage "law-abiding" citizens to report any conversations that violate acceptable protocol, often resulting in the sudden disappearance of long-time citizens simply because of something they said to another citizens.
Playing with the same way your interpretation mistook my analogy, surely you're not suggesting the stuff that goes on in this internet message board is tantamount to the atrocities surrounding
"los desaparecidos" of Argentina's "Dirty War", are you? 😉
I understand the analogy and recognize that whenever you begin censorship, you step onto at very least a mildly slippery slope of what speech is acceptable and under what conditions.
At the same time, to use our example from before, I don't believe society is missing out on much if a message that "Drew is a dick" is removed from the public square. It's much like cleaning up grafitti...
Tags are essentially spam. Removing them is no great loss.
Further, a message that "Busty Betty is a *****"*, absent a relevant context, offers really nothing worthwhile. (Now, it could be argued that a similar message like, "Bill Clinton is a wad" might have value as a political message, and so shouldn't be removed -- and such an argument has merit -- but that sort of message would have meaning and relevance (in the proper context) and would be therefore outside the parameters of the type of
pointless conflict-laden speech this thread has been addressing all this time.)
Take the time to craft your message -- give it some meaning, give it some art, give it some substance and thought that resonates
beyond you -- and more people will see value in it, and be loathe to tear it down, even if it is just graffiti:
Make a mural of considerate and civil thoughts and words first...
...and when
that's torn down, I'll be the first to stand with you in protest.
But I'm sorry, you'll have a tough time getting me aboard the defense of someone's right to call someone else crazy, stupid, or a douchebag out of the blue, and then demand the insult stay there because removing it infringes on the insulter's "rights". Citing discrimination or some other double standard in the way such things are handled may win you some support, but you'll not find me defending unprovoked, unnecessary and irrelevant insults.
I think I'll eschew your last analogy and just keep to the meat of what we've been talking about -- specifically the actions of the posters, and the problems of irrelevant, unnecessarily provocative and negative posts -- rather than redirect focus to actions of moderators.
* To Busty Betty, wherever you are: Please know that I mean you no offense, would never say such a thing about you, and am only using your name as a hypothetical example for debate. 😉 LOL! 
People. 
"? It's unflattering, somewhat demeaning, but there was no name calling, no expletives. Would you flag such a comment for deletion? More important, would you go tattling to the mods about it? 
