|
Originally Posted by truncated
Well, I'll give you a truncated version.
(See what I did there? Eh? Eh?)
By making the decision to post on a public forum, one agrees to both be held accountable for his actions, and to subject himself to the actions of others, with, in all reality, no moderation. There is no mandate of civility on such a medium. By 'imposing' your words upon others, you agree as well to be imposed upon. You have every right not to approve of the opinions or statements put forth, but this is a mutual condition - not everyone has to like you, either.
Would HaydenAsche have held the same negative opinion of Thurston Hunger, regardless of whether he voiced it? Of course. Is frankness preferable to falsification? In my personal opinion, yes, it is.
I appreciate Gooey, and others like him, because they unabashedly voice their opinions, and accept all consequences. I do not respect those who edit themselves for the sake of diplomacy.
The bottom line is, Thurston Hunger essentially shouldn't be bothered with whether or not HaydenAsche, or anyone, approves of his posting; they're not obligated to approve. If encountering opposition makes this forum objectionable to Thurston Hunger, then he can exercise his option to leave and I would, in fact, encourage him to do so.
Why are people so opposed to a bit of healthy debate? Heated discourse? Conflict? Without these, what, I ask, is the point in interacting with others at all?
If I wanted unflagging consensuses, I would simply talk to myself.
(Save your comments.)
The moment disagreements or arguments raise their respective heads on this forum, a number of people complain about it having soured or turned unpleasant. If you folks are looking for a circle jerk, there are plenty of other places to find one other than here.
|