Just remarking that these are great posts.
To me, I want to separate a discussion about what this community considers PERMISSIBLE CONTENT and what this community considers PERMISSIBLE FORMS OF DISCOURSE.
I can come up with all kinds of hypotheticals about content I consider impermissible, but I really have to stretch. What is more fundamental and far more objectionable to me are forms of discourse.
I think an easy objection to that is to refer back to the sort-of recent debate over whether it really matters whether you’re being civil, since bigotry is often civil, and resistance against bigotry is almost by default uncivil. But I don’t really mean whether someone is being polite, so I think it’s okay to throw that objection to the side.
Controversial or generally offensive topics can be confined to containment threads or subforums, but the style of discourse is (at least for me) what defines a community.
It’s not really a fair comparison, but think of @JohnnyTruant. JT has lost his damn mind a time or two, but he reflects, he works to be mindful and responsible not just for what he wants to say but how he says it and how that impacts the people around him. That doesn’t have anything to do with the topics he wants to discuss. Even if he doesn’t think he said anything wrong, he will listen if someone says wtf man.
Now just remove the name if that’s not how you see JT lol, but I hope you can see what I mean. What matters to me most is the form of discourse.
I want to participate in a community of people who value being reflective, mindful, and responsible. People who don’t align with that aren’t bad people. They just aren’t offering the kind of dynamic I want. Indeed, the kind of dynamic I believe is essential to have a productive dialogue regardless of the content or topic.
In my response below to prana, I will draw a crude illustration of my point.