Forum
>
Site Discussion
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
First comments then it will be a chat filter.
Why? Do you have any reason for your speculation? If I said "first comments then it will be raping baby seals" why would that not be equally true? And what's bad about a chat filter?
All slippery slopes are greased with so called good intentions.
So you are just insulting the admins and moderators of this site? You are in effect calling them deluded idiots. But you have been consuming libertarian propaganda, so you know better. Or care to explain?
Do you have any real idea about anybody's actual or stated motivations? Have you been reading what they have been saying? But you know they are lying, or what? Do you deny that any problem exists? Or do you disagree that it is a problem? What would your solution be? Do you have any? Do you think it would be acceptable to them?
Or are you just play-acting a political guru?
Added later:
The problem with applying libertarian ideology to forum comments is that, according to libertarian thought, if everyone gets to do whatever he pleases, the market or the reality or the community will freely reward or punish him by buying his goods or not, cooperating with him or not or by otherwise spending time with him or not.
The point is supposedly that the state should not intervene, because to intervene is to interfere, and to interfere is to distort and to distort is to cause a suboptimal outcome in a system that is believed to be self-optimizing. Applied to a forum or a chat the admins, the moderators and the filter are supposedly playing the role of the state.
But the problem is that there is no way for the general population to reward or punish any other individual. Except by insulting them or shouting them down. The logical outcome of this would be everyone powerless to hurt, control, reward or punish anyone but many would try anyway. Half the commenters would spew inanity everywhere and half the commenters would hate it.
Rules are necessary. All good rules are based on good intentions. The other two alternatives are no rules and rules designed purely to damage and hurt something. So which one of these three are you for? Do you reject the possibility of good altogether?
Well... At least I'm not alone being somewhat confused regarding repeated attempts at leaving comments for various ladies on this site.
I don't claim to be a wordsmith- though I try to improve at such a skill. When I try to add a comment that gets flagged in the "dreaded red" saying my comment "doesn't meet minimum standards" I confess to being a a little confused when a brief look often finds comments that are 2 or 3 words long or worse-- raunchy comments declaring the current state of one's genitalia or for that matter about various ladies, often innocent and unknowing about being catcalled as a result of their hard work.
It seems the answer is to say nothing and proactively eliminate and possible controversy. I'm really just here to admire muscular and strong women.
Period
TheKrueg writes {It seems the answer is to say nothing and proactively eliminate and possible controversy. I'm really just here to admire muscular and strong women.}
Many of us actually enjoy reading and conversing with other femuscle fans. There have also been some of the women themselves, their husbands/ boyfriends, who have reached out to me and thanked me for complimenting their physiques or photo work. We can just try to navigate and find a happy medium with our comments I guess.
I'm finding I often have to make comments that are far less intelligent than I used to, just to get past the filter. Is this how its supposed to work?
So you are just insulting the admins and moderators of this site? You are in effect calling them deluded idiots. But you have been consuming libertarian propaganda, so you know better. Or care to explain?
Wow.
Wow.
That's what he says. And if not so, I did ask him to explain.
But in context he is saying that the maintainers have been taken over by a blind urge to do good, like some fanatics who only end up hurting, killing and destroying the thing they were supposed to save.
The problem is that in some worldviews the idea of necessary discomfort or pain or meritoriously enduring it does not exist. Now someone can immediately say that the bad comments are the necessary pain. But the point is that in a state of chaos or laissez-faire everyone will suffer anyway, but mostly unwillingly and unthinkingly.
Then, when an improvement is attempted, many will resist it. Not because it creates pain that did not exist yet and often not because it causes different kind of pain or more of it, but because it causes awareness of the problem and the discomfort.
First comments then it will be a chat filter. All slippery slopes are greased with so called good intentions.