Niclas, That is not what that point intended to convey.
There is no need for sarcasm to disagree with a point. The problem comes when disrespect, irony, sarcasm and unnecessary abrassion is hidden in the posts. We want to protect the list from people using these toxic ways of communication from harming the environment of the list, not from differing points of view. There are ways. You for example have offered your opinion in respectful ways, and I appreciate it. However, when tone like the one you used in this last message comes out in the conversation, not only dialogue suffers, but the integrity of people reading it, and the safety others might feel when responding or participating. Don't lose sight of what we are debating. Your message is completely out of order. G On Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 8:39 PM Niclas Hedhman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 4:48 AM Craig Russell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > There is a lot of discussion around whether a post is offensive, ad > > hominem, triggering, etc. and these clearly should be rejected either via > > social or technical means. > > > > Absolutely! I support censoring those that disagree with me, since I get > triggered very easily. In fact, posts from some individuals trigger me even > before I decide to not read the post, I don't want to be influenced by > those who have a different point of view. And I favor technical means, > since social ones obviously don't work, everyone who disagrees don't > realize how toxic their posts are, so it is only good for them to clean up > and reconsider their wording by a nudge from the moderators to think > correctly. > > Cheers > Niclas >
