Defamation vs. personal insults

Yep, like Toast.

There you have it folks. Being mean is not okay. We'll ban you down to Timbuktu if you so much as breathe the wrong way at someone, so run a tight fucking ship.

Or, you know, we can give people their basic freedoms and let the community exist without any kind of thought police.

Take a little bit of my post out of context, try to turn it around on me with something ridiculous.

You have made it very clear that you don't support free speech, and have said as much in this very topic. You don't consider members to have the right to speak their minds, and would rather control their opinions and posts to conform with some arbitrary standard of 'niceness.'

I feel that on an internet forum that is required, though I make no claim that I want to control their opinions, they can just keep some to themselves. I don't care if you're nice or mean, I do care about you not personally insulting anyone. You don't know how I feel about free speech irl because that is a separate issue. You can't run a forum the same way a government runs a country, it doesn't work because it's just a freaking forum. The highest priority should be ensuring a friendly environment where all users can be comfortable and have fun.

Whoa! Hold up a sec. Toast got banned?

It was a one month ban, it is not permanent but it was not unjustified either. He does insult people a whole lot, more than just about anyone else. Was going to happen sooner or later.

This kids is an example of one of two things:

• Kali is ignorant of Chelsea's opinion.
• A strawman argument.

I think both are reasonably likely.
A strawman argument is when someone uses a position or viewpoint someone else doesn't hold in order to undermine or attack them/their actual position. Let's look together at a couple of examples@

I'd like to see where she precisely states she doesn't believe in Free Speech. You don't have to either completely disagree with free speech or completely agree that people can say literally whatever they want to whoever they want there is a scale, Chelsea is happy with free speech to a point but doesn't feel it's necessary on a forum a privately run space that members can insult and make the environment unpleasant for everyone. She has even implied she would not enforce such a standard say for an entire country. To go from "Chelsea believes that people should not insult each other on this forum in order to make it a better experience for everyone" to "Chelsea clearly does not believe in Free Speech" is a colossal strawman. This isn't a country, we aren't the government, this a private run 'business' of sorts. Companies can enforce a standard for treating their colleagues without the heads of said companies "not believing in free speech".

ooooh close. However, that's not implied by what she has said. What is implied is that Chelsea feels people should choose to express whatever opinions they want (which she has no control over) in a way that isn't purposefully insulting (remember the fag/gay example). That's not the same as "controlling" anything. If you had used another word it would have probably been alright.

The fact is people can without much effort express their opinions in a way that isn't purposefully insulting and overall makes this forum a much nicer place, as I'm about to do when I say that Kali is being intellectually dishonest.

@Chels, I hope I got your opinions correct in this post, unlike Kali I did make an attempt to.

edit:

Erm... no, just... no...

Pretty much nailed it.