curl-6 said:
I feel like when someone "x is/isn't y" or "Nintendo is better than Xbox" or "capitalism is better than communism", the "IMO" is kind of implied and it's not really necessary to add that you are stating your own opinion, not forcing it on others. The problem arises when people try to force their beliefs on others by demanding that any opinion contrary to theirs be banned, silenced, or otherwise punished. |
That's not what i observe. What I have noticed is that people demand to be protected when they feel they are under attack. And that happens when the implication is not obvious. The rules exist for that reason. The forum isnt supposed to feel like a place where people have to implicitly know what isn't stated and users aren't expected to just take it on the chin so that prejudices can be dispensed at the expense of other members. I have zero expectations or desire for people to agree on everything... but implying that feeling attacked is the same thing as forcing a belief doesn't pass the non bias test. It is not difficult to express a different opinion in a manner that is not abrasive.
Also, are you saying that someone has requested a ban for someone else for simply saying 'capitalism is better than communism'? I feel like you are making false equivalencies to actaul legit complaints. If this really happened then of course its silly. I once read a comment on here years ago from some expressing that gay people should be killed. That's what im talking about. Implicit IMO my ass lol.
Give me an example of a real life frivolous ban request so I know where you are coming from. We may be on the same page and I just don't realize it.







