TheBananaKing,

I’m not sure how that’s relevant here.

There’s a ton of highly-polarizing, hot-button political issues out there at the moment - trans rights, climate change, the republican party, et cetera et cetera.

Presenting those issues in a blunt or confrontational manner is virtually guaranteed to generate strong feelings; starting a fight over them would be trivially easy.

By any reasonable metric, you’d have to call those topics inflammatory. But is it useful or appropriate to ban discussion of them from the platform on that basis?

I hold that it is not. They are inflammatory because they are important, because people need to be talking about them and taking a position, because people should be trying to convince others to be on the right side of history.

If people have to self-censor just in case things could potentially get heated, because god forbid anyone care enough to raise their voice, all you’re left with is celebrity gossip and fashion news - and that’s exactly the kind of bland advertiser-friendly pap I thought we were trying to avoid.

Quite frankly if you aren’t getting angry about important things, you’re doing it wrong - and imho it just smacks of entitlement to play tone-police and refusing to hear a message because the phrasing isn’t polite or the person saying it won’t stay in their designated lane.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • uselessserver093
  • Food
  • [email protected]
  • aaaaaaacccccccce
  • test
  • CafeMeta
  • testmag
  • MUD
  • RhythmGameZone
  • RSS
  • dabs
  • oklahoma
  • Socialism
  • KbinCafe
  • TheResearchGuardian
  • Ask_kbincafe
  • SuperSentai
  • feritale
  • KamenRider
  • All magazines