I feel like there’s a huge different between PROCESSING the desire to see someone else harmed and CULTIVATING the desire to see someone else harmed.
I would for sure like for this to be a place where if you’re experiencing those kinds of thoughts and feelings, you can talk about them in a meaningful way.
But that’s different than dropping a wish for someone’s harm and encouraging others to do the same.
@tabbaker, I think even there, we’re at an impasse. I believe cultivating a desire for someone else’s harm is evil, but you seem to think it’s a good thing depending on the person. Is this a fair description of your view?
If Trump dies in office, I’m going to be dancing on his grave in here. And that goes for whether he dies from a heart attack or a terrorist attack.
And, sure, that would be in bad taste and “not a good look”, but so what? At the end of the day, these rules are a measure of how much we are willing to tolerate people being wrong.
Dude obviously. But until the day he dies we have to make do with calling him names and at least in my case making fun of his hilariously low credit rating (it’s a 15 on Ansonia, anything under a 90 is kind of bad).
I think a good line to draw is wishing for the death of people who are currently alive. Totally fine to break out in song when someone you think is awful dies. They are already dead. You can’t incite people to do violence to the corpse (even if you really want to).
I would draw a line before we’re not allowed to talk about it at all. I celebrate how much less suffering there was in the world once Hitler was dead, but I don’t celebrate the fact that he suffered.
Perhaps I’m in the minority here against punitive and restorative justice. There’s an old philosophy exercise (I’m slightly altering it) wherein you gather the worst, irredeemable criminals possible. You have the option of putting each one of them into their own pocket universe where they are the only sentient creature and will live out the rest of their days:
pocket universe 1) in total and complete happiness
pocket universe 2) in total and complete suffering
I’d put all of them in #1, but a lot of people believe if a person does something wrong, they should suffer.
In the original scenario, I believe the option was to put them in a pocket universe or just flat out kill them.
For sure. I think it’s fine for you to not be sad Scalia was dead. Even for you to be happy he died. Feelings aren’t easy to explain or justify. Sometimes they just are what they are.
Is it wishing for the death of someone if you point out that someone is an old, fat piece of crap who has a significant chance of not finishing his term and suggesting who might be a good candidate in a special election to replace him if he dies?
zikzak has mentioned traffic drops off a cliff on the weekend so there probably won’t be much change, plus a lot of the polls are pretty much done since there would need to be a sudden surge of 20+ people voting to swing them.
I think it’s safe to start working on hammering out the trickier rules (1, 6, 7) in their own threads and maybe give it a few more days for close ones like the poll for rule 9 to shake out.
Totally fair. I guess me pointing it out was hoping that someone would clarify some other purpose for the rule that I wasn’t understanding. But yeah if there’s nothing else to it then #11 standing really doesn’t matter so I’m cool with it.
Also, great job overall on this JT. I still consider myself a lurker, though I post more than I did on 22, but I’m happy to see this community thrive and I think this effort will pay off.
I don’t think there’s a downside to just starting the threads on the contentious rules and getting the discussions going, as for how to structure voting inside the thread I honestly don’t know. Let’s say the no porn rule was close, which side has to get to 70%? Maybe it should just be majority wins after x number of revisions?
I like your idea for Phase 2 posted above. I also think a single person (guess who) should be the “moderator” of each specific rule discussion thread.
I would imagine that a “final” vote would not allow a middle option. Either a yes/no vote on the revised rule. (Maybe it could possibly make sense to have another “final” vote if one additional bout of word-smithing could sway enough votes to change from a No result to a Yes result??) I am not advocating for it, but in a pure Yes/No world, a 50% threshold does make some sense (I think a higher threshold is appropriate, maybe 66%??).
The tricky part will be to fairly and impartially close off further discussion and craft a new revised rule for “final” vote. Of course, there will likely be a bunch of information in the thread from both the Yes and No initial voters, but also (more importantly) from the “Undecided” initial voters.
As you said once before, crafting a rule that perfectly threads the needle will be a challenge.
