Is this a virtual Union Square?
"You can talk about nearly anything you want here. Here be monsters! Debate, evangelize, it's all good except for: racist, homophobic, sexist, or religious hate speech or threats of violence."
I believe racists, homophobes, and sexists have as much right to speak as I do. I understand that there are limits: threats, someone who spams 'nigger' or 'fag' or 'bitch', or makes attempts to capitalize off of the Revs fame (such as it is) should not be allowed to disrupt this site, nor should people who post wildly off topic, bigoted rants be allowed to troll. However, I have met intelligent bigots of all races and creeds, and I would never choose to silence them no matter how offended I am by what they may say. Without including all opposing viewpoints in our discussions, we are engaging in a philosophical, political, and emotional circle jerk to a greater or lesser extent. Solutions demand inclusion whenever possible. There are racist environmentalists and sexist gay rights advocates - if their arguments stray into what one would consider racism or sexism, then should they be banned?
I guess the core question is this: are you going to treat revbilly.com as a public space, or as a private space?
I believe racists, homophobes, and sexists have as much right to speak as I do. I understand that there are limits: threats, someone who spams 'nigger' or 'fag' or 'bitch', or makes attempts to capitalize off of the Revs fame (such as it is) should not be allowed to disrupt this site, nor should people who post wildly off topic, bigoted rants be allowed to troll. However, I have met intelligent bigots of all races and creeds, and I would never choose to silence them no matter how offended I am by what they may say. Without including all opposing viewpoints in our discussions, we are engaging in a philosophical, political, and emotional circle jerk to a greater or lesser extent. Solutions demand inclusion whenever possible. There are racist environmentalists and sexist gay rights advocates - if their arguments stray into what one would consider racism or sexism, then should they be banned?
I guess the core question is this: are you going to treat revbilly.com as a public space, or as a private space?
(Insert Ad Here)
The reason you don't hear racist rants in Union Square has less to do with the rule of law than of tyranny of the majority (excluding profanity, etc.).
As far as Galt goes, he somehow damns elitists while supporting Ayn Rand, and sees no dichotomy in this.
Thanks for asking for my input!
Case by Case
We have had trolls on our site(s) before who really are experts at starting flame wars and don't really bring anything but that to the conversation. Right now there is a Ayn Rand lover named John Galt trolling this site, he is remarkably similar to someone we suffered through at our last site.... and I still dont' know what to do about people like him. Its boring and repeitive but harmless I guess
Per your other quesitons about inclusion... I have definitely stretched to uncomfortable conversations and dialogue with people I don't necessarily agree with, but I have a couple of very very low to zero tolerance areas:: racism, homophobia - these wil not be tolerated on this site, however that alone does not make it a PRIVATE site, I trust the community here to disallow that, and thats how it works in public too right? I mean you won't overhear to many racist rants in Union Square-- people wouldn't allow it-- so I believe the more public the better, that is where true safety lies, but I think I have to reserve the right to flat out delete some comments and ban abusive users, yes.
How would you propose to moderate the site? Lets hash it out.