LogFAQs > #978784709

CSCA33 posted...

You've essentially suggested we entertain "view points" that would deny basic human rights for marginalized and vulnerable minorities, including children, as if those view points are valid and deserve a seat at the table.

People don't generally get moderated here merely for having a "different view point," they involve promoting misinformation / disinformation, misogyny or sexism, advocating bigoted ideology, and other harmful content. So, it's blatantly disingenuous to float these baseless assertions, painting yourself as a victim who decries this forum for not allowing people to voice their "differing view points."

And when pressed about what these view points are, you refuse to elucidate beyond a blanket "any" differing viewpoint, which we can infer to include bigoted ideology and disinformation from bad faith actors.

That's a lot to insert on what you think I mean from what I've said so far. To be clearer, I mean any viewpoint that fits into the TOS but can suffer the trolley problem on which issue to tackle. The reason I'm using general terms is because that's relevant to the topic itself.

To give you example on an example of discussions. When someone is neutral, they need to look at it many sides from both point of views. If they conclude that for one reason or another that for reasons brought up. They don't agree with either. It can lead to the above as you stated. So, my question in return then. How do you stay neutral to cause but not come off as anything like that. Especially with the victim mindset? Anything I give you from the board is anecdotal and experience. Which may vary from person to person.