Welcome to DART: Introduce Yourself

YYW can be extremely stubborn and will probably never admit he is wrong, so I don't imagine this went anywhere.

I guess my only difference of opinion with you would be whether it is justifiable for you to be angry that action wasn't taken against YYW.

He tends to think his own opinions and morals are the one and only objective truth.

If Max did nothing in this situation, that's probably the exact measure I would have supported him taking ...

... Maybe he should have been better at communicating that this was his chosen method

I think moderation action against you is unlikely. Wylted usually says way more controversial things

If fear that you or someone else will use the mentioned sections of the CoC as an excuse to suppress only those opinions which are fashionable to suppress and thereby deprive posters of equal protection under the CoC.

I don't know how that's a here we go again, dude. I don't know what moral good you think you're championing here or what argument of his swayed you, but the dude fucks his dog. You dismiss these weirdos out of hand always or you're also a weirdo. Being a debater doesn't save you. 

1. Having pure freedom of speech on a website that's on the brink of death, driving sensible members away and leaving only... lunatics and madmen behind.
   
2. Reining in the wildest and most offensive and repulsive debates, especially if they'll show on the 'hot topics' list for an extended period of time, so as to avoid potential onlookers to the website going W T F and never visiting it again (bestiality being defended is one of those ones).
   

1. Having pure freedom of speech on a website that's on the brink of death, driving sensible members away and leaving only... lunatics and madmen behind.
   

2. Reining in the wildest and most offensive and repulsive debates, especially if they'll show on the 'hot topics' list for an extended period of time, so as to avoid potential onlookers to the website going W T F and never visiting it again (bestiality being defended is one of those ones).

I am asking you which is the lesser evil and how clear it is to you what needs to be done to keep this site popular and presentable to Twitter, as Airmax wants it to be.

1. "bsh1."  You have represented that I accused the individual known as "bsh1" as a "pedo."  I have not accused the individual known as "bsh1" of being a "pedo," and to the extent you have claimed otherwise, that is incorrect.  Bsh1 directed sexually suggestive communications, language and comments to an individual that bsh1 knew, at the time he made them, to be under the age of 18 and at most 14 years old.  Bsh1 made those communications in the context of a "rap battle," which is a matter of record.  I and others, including esocialbookworm ("annie") objected to this, among other things.  Annie and I stated our objections in several contexts.   A consensus among active members began to form, relating to the inappropriate nature of bsh1's communications.  Bsh1 thereafter unilaterally decided to leave DDO.  Further, I do not see what, if any, relevance that set of facts and circumstances has to any matter raised in this thread.  As a general practice, it is best to let what is in the past remain there.  
   
2. "adreamofliberty."  You have made certain representations about prior activity on another site relating to the individual known as "adreamofliberty," who may be currently active on this website under the same username.  On DDO, as you will recall, I objected to that individual's use of DDO as a forum to advocate for sexually assaulting non-human animals, in response to gratuitous and repeated activities and communications posted by the individual known as "adreamofliberty" advocating for sexually assaulting non-human animals.  My argument there was simple: DDO is not the place to advocate for sexually assaulting non-human animals.  Various users, including yourself, disagreed and thought that advocating for sexually assaulting non-human animals should be allowed.  Those views were unfortunate.  Here, my position on that issue is similar: DebateArt should not be a forum to advocate for sexually assaulting non-human animals.  You're free to think otherwise, but there is no world where my position on that issue changes.  There are plenty of places on the internet for deviants of all types to congregate; no compelling reasons exist to support the proposition that this should be one of them.  An appropriate analogy is to a Nazi in a bar.  Nazi walks into a bar.  The bar owner throws out the Nazi, even though the particular Nazi hasn't done anything especially egregious.  Other patrons ask why.  Bar owner says that if you let one Nazi in, others will follow and before you know it, he's running a Nazi bar.  Bar owner doesn't want to run a Nazi bar.  Simple as that.  There are plenty of other places online where those discussions can take place, like 4chan or other shitholes of the internet.   No one, including me, is arguing for "censorship," as such.  Arguments which begin from the proposition that all censorship is wrong miss the point, accordingly.  Even if you wanted to begin from the proposition that all censorship is wrong, however, I am certain you would readily agree that posting visual images depicting actual (as opposed to animated) human beings under the age of eighteen engaged in sexual activity would be inappropriate, right?  Of course you do, and doing so would violate this site's terms of use.  So, from this we have learned that there are at least some circumstances where certain restrictions as to the content posted on this website are appropriate.  For the same reasons as that species of restriction is appropriate, limiting advocacy for sexually assaulting non-human animals (e.g., housepets) is similarly appropriate.  You may disagree, but my position on that issue isn't going to change.  
   
3. Other comments.  As a general practice moving forward, it would be better to abstain from reopening what, frankly, is ancient history.  What's in the past is in the past.  I and others, including individuals who may not be active on this site, have perspectives on them.  Prudent consideration should be given to what happens next, once all those old skeletons are dug up out of the ground.  Is anyone better off?  Will anyone's position on those issues change?  Are the foreseeable costs of re-opening those discussions worth it?  Just something to think about, before continuing those discussions, particularly to the extent doing so is likely to involve characterizing disputed facts in objectionable ways.  
   

• To the extent historical activity of any user of either this site or the prior site, DDO, is improperly described, characterized or otherwise referenced, the potential for substantial and unproductive controversy is foreseeable.  I struggle to grasp the utility associated with any such discussions.  
  
• The suggestion that this website is used for, or in any way causes "oppression" of any kind is facially absurd.  Engaging in discussion of any proposed merits to that argument would be futile, when that argument is self-evidently merittless.
  
• The supposed characterizations by certain others relating to purported historical activities on this or the prior site are replete with inaccuracies, omissions and misrepresentations of fact.  No reasonable person could view them as anything other than what they are: self-serving narratives, written for the purpose of supporting individual perspectives on what may or may not have occurred.  
  

1. "bsh1."  You have represented that I accused the individual known as "bsh1" as a "pedo."  I have not accused the individual known as "bsh1" of being a "pedo," and to the extent you have claimed otherwise, that is incorrect.  Bsh1 directed sexually suggestive communications, language and comments to an individual that bsh1 knew, at the time he made them, to be under the age of 18 and at most 14 years old.  Bsh1 made those communications in the context of a "rap battle," which is a matter of record.  I and others, including esocialbookworm ("annie") objected to this, among other things.  Annie and I stated our objections in several contexts.   A consensus among active members began to form, relating to the inappropriate nature of bsh1's communications.  Bsh1 thereafter unilaterally decided to leave DDO.  Further, I do not see what, if any, relevance that set of facts and circumstances has to any matter raised in this thread.  As a general practice, it is best to let what is in the past remain there.  
   

2. "adreamofliberty."  You have made certain representations about prior activity on another site relating to the individual known as "adreamofliberty," who may be currently active on this website under the same username.  On DDO, as you will recall, I objected to that individual's use of DDO as a forum to advocate for sexually assaulting non-human animals, in response to gratuitous and repeated activities and communications posted by the individual known as "adreamofliberty" advocating for sexually assaulting non-human animals.  My argument there was simple: DDO is not the place to advocate for sexually assaulting non-human animals.  Various users, including yourself, disagreed and thought that advocating for sexually assaulting non-human animals should be allowed.  Those views were unfortunate.  Here, my position on that issue is similar: DebateArt should not be a forum to advocate for sexually assaulting non-human animals. 

You're free to think otherwise, but there is no world where my position on that issue changes.  There are plenty of places on the internet for deviants of all types to congregate; no compelling reasons exist to support the proposition that this should be one of them.  An appropriate analogy is to a Nazi in a bar.  Nazi walks into a bar.  The bar owner throws out the Nazi, even though the particular Nazi hasn't done anything especially egregious.  Other patrons ask why.  Bar owner says that if you let one Nazi in, others will follow and before you know it, he's running a Nazi bar.  Bar owner doesn't want to run a Nazi bar.  Simple as that.  There are plenty of other places online where those discussions can take place, like 4chan or other shitholes of the internet.   No one, including me, is arguing for "censorship," as such.  Arguments which begin from the proposition that all censorship is wrong miss the point, accordingly.

You may disagree, but my position on that issue isn't going to change.  

Other comments.  As a general practice moving forward, it would be better to abstain from reopening what, frankly, is ancient history.  What's in the past is in the past.  I and others, including individuals who may not be active on this site, have perspectives on them.  Prudent consideration should be given to what happens next, once all those old skeletons are dug up out of the ground.  Is anyone better off?  Will anyone's position on those issues change?  Are the foreseeable costs of re-opening those discussions worth it?  Just something to think about, before continuing those discussions, particularly to the extent doing so is likely to involve characterizing disputed facts in objectionable ways.  

RationalMadman:

Having pure freedom of speech on a website that's on the brink of death, driving sensible members away and leaving only... lunatics and madmen behind.

coal:

An appropriate analogy is to a Nazi in a bar.  Nazi walks into a bar.  The bar owner throws out the Nazi, even though the particular Nazi hasn't done anything especially egregious.  Other patrons ask why.  Bar owner says that if you let one Nazi in, others will follow and before you know it, he's running a Nazi bar.  Bar owner doesn't want to run a Nazi bar.  Simple as that.

1. With respect to bsh1, I have stated precisely what he did in #312, above.  You appear to be confusing one instance of potential misconduct with other circumstances, the details of which I decline to relitigate more than I already have.  If you don't remember the events I described, that's for the best.  Your opinions with respect to why I might be biased are unavailing and do not require my response.
   
2. Your opinions related to the individual who posted on a prior site known as "adreamofliberty" are not persuasive and I see no reason why they require a response.  You have not addressed the specific point I made and until you do, I will not engage on that issue.  Even if you did, I might still not respond because doing so is futile and a complete waste of my time.  
   
3. As to your opinions about my intent in advising you to consider, among other things, the wisdom of dragging up ancient history, I invite you to refrain from such speculation.  You have done nothing to correct any "narrative," but have stated numerous mischaracterizations of fact based on events to which you either (a) were never privy, or (b) even if you were privy to some, remained ignorant of the broader context.  You know or should reasonably expect that I and Annie knew more about situations relating to bsh1, for reasons you have previously acknowledged.  It is preposterous for you to think you are better informed than I am on any such matter, and even more so with respect to what I did or did not say related to that individual.  
   

1. With respect to bsh1, I have stated precisely what he did in #312, above.  You appear to be confusing one instance of potential misconduct with other circumstances, the details of which I decline to relitigate more than I already have.  If you don't remember the events I described, that's for the best.  Your opinions with respect to why I might be biased are unavailing and do not require my response.
   

1. Your opinions related to the individual who posted on a prior site known as "adreamofliberty" are not persuasive and I see no reason why they require a response.  You have not addressed the specific point I made and until you do, I will not engage on that issue.  Even if you did, I might still not respond because doing so is futile and a complete waste of my time.  
   

1. As to your opinions about my intent in advising you to consider, among other things, the wisdom of dragging up ancient history, I invite you to refrain from such speculation.  You have done nothing to correct any "narrative," but have stated numerous mischaracterizations of fact based on events to which you either (a) were never privy, or (b) even if you were privy to some, remained ignorant of the broader context.  You know or should reasonably expect that I and Annie knew more about situations relating to bsh1, for reasons you have previously acknowledged.  It is preposterous for you to think you are better informed than I am on any such matter, and even more so with respect to what I did or did not say related to that individual.  
   

The instance I responded to ADOL about was Bsh1 leaving the website, not being banned, in regards to accusations of bsh1 saying something in the Utopia Crumbles thread. . . . The thing I mentioned is why bsh1 left.

. . . You are essentially part of cancel culture.

The instance I responded to ADOL about was Bsh1 leaving the website, not being banned, in regards to accusations of bsh1 saying something in the Utopia Crumbles thread. . . . The thing I mentioned is why bsh1 left.

You began this discussion.  You claimed I said something.  I said no such thing.  Thereafter, I corrected you as to both what I have and have not said before, both in general and in the specific case you referenced.  The specific case you referenced was behavior in keeping with prior behavior of his in other contexts, on which I have previously spoken and which formed the perspective of what I said right after bsh1 left DART.  

Cancel culture?  Seriously?

This argument doesn't even rise to the level of frivolity.  DART is a tiny website, with a marginally active user base.  The site's user base isn't even large enough that you could reasonably argue that it functions like a public square, as perhaps you might with Reddit (e.g., /r/thedonald), Twitter (e.g.,  Trump's twitter account), Facebook (e.g., Trump's Facebook account) or Amazon Web Hosting (e.g., Parler).  The internet at large, not to mention the world itself outside of the electronic, remains available for users such as the individual currently identifying himself as "adreamofliberty" to have any discussion they like.   By your logic, if anyone objects to anything in any specific case or context, they're engaging in "cancel culture."  Which, I will note, is not what "cancel culture" is.  

Cancel culture, it turns out, refers when someone is subject to ostracism, in which they're thrown out of some social group (whether online, on social media or in person) because they have ran afoul of what is acceptable according to the woke, in some banal or trivial way. 

 And you missed my point about Nazis in a bar.  The point had nothing to do with the quality of being a Nazi or your feelings about them being present or experience with how you argue.  The point was about compartmentalization and its benefits; keeping some things out of some contexts, sometimes.  Not excluding them from everywhere, always.

 The all-or-none argumentative strategy you took is a nonsensical strawman.  We are only talking about DART, not the internet or the world at large.  

You actually thought that was a serious response, too. Dude.  I have no words.  

I also literally do not understand how this point was missed, either.  Keeping discussion of fucking housepets off of DART is not a broader call to silence any such discussion on the broader internet at large.  Especially when I went out of my way to make that point clear on no less than three individual occasions.  

I also never said that bsh1 was a pedo.  Nor do I think he is that.  This is the fourth time I've reiterated that point, and if you don't comprehend what I wrote then dude I don't even know what to tell you.  He directed suggestive language that fell squarely within the category of sexual harassment to a person he knew was a young teenager and did that on multiple occasions with multiple people.  That makes him a creep, not a pedo.