Is calling someone a coward a ban worthy offense

In regards to the hate speech thing... this site is starting to shape up as a perfect example. I personally don't think you can handle policing people's speech bc i don't think anyone can without bias. People can call me stupid all day and i'll just laugh bc i find it funny... You can call someone stupid once and they're devastated. Who do you side with? 

First, lewd or suggestive comments which constitute unwanted advances.

Third, comments targeting a user's sex, sexual attractiveness, sexual performance, or orientation which are designed to make the recipient feel uncomfortable or to mock the recipient

Per a previous site discussion, restrictions on hate speech have been significantly relaxed. No user has been banned for hate speech, period. Similarly, no user has been warned about hate speech since that previous site discussion.

Are you sure? Insults are hate speech... you haven't warned anyone for insults? 

Considering that, by bsh's definition, it's sexual harassment to call someone ugly, I can't say that the accusation really carries much weight.

I don't see how it's humbling to have your friends tell you you're laughing at them and making them feel hurt. I can see how it's good for you to realise you to it though.

Also you know you can't stay mad at me, my fucking wardrobe leads to Narnia. 

Only a narcissist sees anyone who bullies them as a sociopath, because they assume that no sane person could find grievous fault with them.

In reality, most bullies are just normal people who have a very different idea of what is appropriate, and attempt to rectify what they see as errors in your behavior. The amount of 'bullies' that someone has is usually commensurate to the amount of character flaws that they put on display, and their hysterical refusal to correct any of them just attracts more bullies, like moths to a flame. Far from being 'sociopathic', bullying in any social economy is a way of fixing bad behaviour. It's only seen as bad in itself by people who are immature, or just lack the ability to accept criticism. Of course, you can argue that a specific bully is off the mark, but the act itself is very healthy.

Harassment should mean someone that goes around and literally harasses you without any substance to their responses.

And last point, when they said they told him not to talk to people on this forum... i just don't get that. What are people like him suppose to do? People that are generally skeptics and harsher in their rebuke... what are they suppose to do when the mods tell them they can't talk to anyone? You can't talk to A, b, c, d, e, f, user... you can only talk to Outplayz bc everyone else doesn't like you... i mean common, really? As long as the conversation is minimally substantive and it isn't just random rude remarks... we are all on a public forum and are choosing to put ideas, sometimes radical, on these forums... You're going to be criticized. I just see very little empathy for the side that is being reported on. It seems like mob rule to me right now. The crybabies all getting their way... that just makes zero sense to me. Life is hard, there are mean people in this world... stop hiding and step up and justify yourself and be confident in your ideas ...if it gets no where... instead of being offended, know it's the other person problem. Or, rework and grow yourself. You learn very little from agreeable people.    

I have not found that last sentence to be true. But I have found that powerful things are forged in fire, and that conflict is defining. 

Fwiw, I was gonna reply to many other points in your response to me, but they would probably all have fallen under debate about Goldtop, and if you get treated like a Goldtop apologist one more time it seems like you may start shooting people. 

Ah, codswallop. I would never "assume no sane person could find grievous fault with me", but if I became bullied by a domineering and manipulative pathological liar with no apparent empathy, I would say that person has sociopathic tendencies, and I'd likely be right to say it. I'd also seek a second opinion from someone I considered to have good judgment, as a check on my bias. Then I would commence Operation Eat Me And Fuck Off. For the record, I don't think Goldtop was a sociopath.

It's true they're usually normal people. No one is pure evil. But I think it's a bit naive to think bullies are just trying to correct or improve their victims. We shouldn't assume it's tough love. Most of them are doing it for personal pleasure, and their motives are destructive.

However, if you said ill-meaning bullies can still be useful in helping one build a thicker skin -- serving as unwitting training dummies, if you will -- I could get behind that.

The vast, vast majority of the time, 'bullying' is done because you're breaking some unspoken social rule (that usually has a good reason for existing), or because you're doing something that most people find annoying, which is why the bully is able to function without himself being bullied.

I have not found that last sentence to be true. But I have found that powerful things are forged in fire, and that conflict is defining. 

Fwiw, I was gonna reply to many other points in your response to me, but they would probably all have fallen under debate about Goldtop, and if you get treated like a Goldtop apologist one more time it seems like you may start shooting people. 

Yeah... my whole intention here was to bring attention to the definitions of the things he got in trouble for... not so much defend him. But bc i knew Gold and how he acts... i was a little surprised to be honest about the sexual harassment part of it which made me skeptical of the other reasons. But like i've mentioned, i agree with the moderation, however, i think the moderation should take a second look at the implications of things such as harassment when told not to talk to someone. That is just unavoidable and kinda not fair when the person is here to specifically reply to said users bc he/she disagrees with those user... it's a little like entrapment. I think as long as it's minimally substantive ... it shouldn't qualify as harassment.  

In regards to that last sentence... i wanted to edit that too once i read it back. I just thought you'd say something so i can correct myself in reply, and thankfully you caught it. You do learn a lot from agreeable people... but what you learn from people that are totally against your ideas is different. For instance debating people like Gold have taught me all new analogies to make my point clear, made me focus on defining what i mean more succinctly, etc. You just learn different things from people that disagree with you and these things are extras that strengthen your main points and how they get communicated. That is why i like having people that are polar opposites to someone that is more agreeable or even someone that's nice but not agreeable. Bc nice people don't push you the same way someone that is a little more mean-spirited would. 

What do you mean by the bolded sentence?

Just like what you see with Disgusted... here he is, in almost every religious topic insulting people...