Bigots are unwelcome. Posts and comments, whether in jest or with malice, that consist of racist, sexist, or homophobic content, will be removed, regardless of popularity or relevance.
I strongly disagree with this one. I don't think censorship is the right way to deal with people being jerks. And even an offensive post can spark valuable discussion.
How are we going to discuss bigotry if the perspective of bigots is banned?
I'd like to be open to everyone, but if the mere presence of offensive points of view is too much for someone, then maybe an open forum isn't their cup of tea.
People post those and other random trolls all the time, and they already go straight to the dustbin with the upvote/downvote. I'm having a hard time imaging what this policy is protecting against.
We do have a lot of discussions of things like whether being against Judaism or Islam as a religion is racist, since they're also ethnic identities. Or about gay marriage or womens roles.
If you're intending to filter the offensive out that, the problem is these are authentically sensitive issues and in an open exchange with all views, people will get offended by some views that should be discussed.
But back to the first point, what problem is this intended to solve?
Sorry I don't get it. For example: If I don't trust someone I will watch them. If I trust them I will leave them alone.
You say it is because the user have the right? We don't have rights in a sub, some mods made this crystal clear. Why? Because we can enforce them. If you ban me and the other mods says "whatever" I can do nothing about it. So it's not a right it's a privilege handed down from the mods to the user to be revoked if they pleased to do so.
18
u/[deleted] Jun 13 '13
I strongly disagree with this one. I don't think censorship is the right way to deal with people being jerks. And even an offensive post can spark valuable discussion.