Having not seen the amended post before it was moderated, I'm not sure how far off the plantation/farm it went, but having been in Mod2's shoes for other sites, it can be a real challenge figuring out how best to handle some contributors who often like to game the system and bend the rules, such as sneaking mainland politics and conspiracies in their signature line, posting "hidden text", misquoting people, claiming people said things they never said, not answering questions, and generally not acting in good faith in a variety of ways. I don't envy Mod2's obligations, but I can sympathize with them.
In this case, it seems less like "some animals are more equal than others" and more a need to remember and obey the old major "seven commandments" - keep it local, local, local, etc... As for "a priori hostility", it's more a case of you get what you give - if you choose to attack people and say they don't know what they're talking about (all while demonstrating a complete lack of basic understanding of the topic) then you're not in much of a place to demand to be treated with kid gloves. Empathy and tolerance are not moral goods, they're a social contract - if you don't give a fuck about others and their well-being then no one is obligated to give a fuck about you and yours. (see the paradox of tolerance - Popper (1945) or the Golden Rule, depending on which text is best understood)
For Obie, Section 230 says you're also barking up the wrong tree, but that's only if one actually cares about upholding the rules of law that protect basic freedoms and not just trying to exert power to quell speech you dislike. You really want the authorities to be reviewing Punaweb for wrong-think?
Sorry Mod2, not trying to make your task harder, just trying to provide some perspective for the free speech warriors who demand to their speech to go unchallenged and others to be silenced. Thanks for doing the hard work - feel free to nuke if needed.
In this case, it seems less like "some animals are more equal than others" and more a need to remember and obey the old major "seven commandments" - keep it local, local, local, etc... As for "a priori hostility", it's more a case of you get what you give - if you choose to attack people and say they don't know what they're talking about (all while demonstrating a complete lack of basic understanding of the topic) then you're not in much of a place to demand to be treated with kid gloves. Empathy and tolerance are not moral goods, they're a social contract - if you don't give a fuck about others and their well-being then no one is obligated to give a fuck about you and yours. (see the paradox of tolerance - Popper (1945) or the Golden Rule, depending on which text is best understood)
For Obie, Section 230 says you're also barking up the wrong tree, but that's only if one actually cares about upholding the rules of law that protect basic freedoms and not just trying to exert power to quell speech you dislike. You really want the authorities to be reviewing Punaweb for wrong-think?
Sorry Mod2, not trying to make your task harder, just trying to provide some perspective for the free speech warriors who demand to their speech to go unchallenged and others to be silenced. Thanks for doing the hard work - feel free to nuke if needed.