@commandelicious
It is certainly a pleasure to have you as well. You are always welcome here and your account will be waiting should you ever choose to come back. You're family whether you leave or not :)

@hashtaggrammar @Surasanji

@commandelicious @Surasanji @freemo Well let's put it another way. I guess the contrarian in me is always at work, so another part of me is like...what if you're a pedophile and you want a safe space to talk about wanting to act on your impulses? Are we just going to be like... you do you, boo?

The line does need to be drawn somewhere, no?

@hashtaggrammar
That would violate our policy as physical harm to another. We certainly have a line and have banned people who crossed it.

@commandelicious @Surasanji

@freemo @commandelicious @Surasanji Some things are just unquestionable. I'm basically saying, I'll debate differing opinions all day long as long... as they aren't bigoted views. In real life I've had successful debates; a few months ago I even got a Vietnam Vet wearing a MAGA shirt to admit he'd vote for Michelle Obama. ;) I reject the notion that engaging with the other side is totally pointless, and I actually usually feel like a minority with that opinion in my real life.

@hashtaggrammar
Very well said, your views seem to line up very closely with my own. In the end we NEED this sort of dialogue if we have any hope of fixing the wounds society has right now.

The only alternative is screaming at each other across the aisle, each side getting progressively more violent and angry, until we have people killing and assaulting each other. Hell we are already there!

@commandelicious @Surasanji

@freemo @hashtaggrammar @commandelicious

There are certainly things which are absolutely wrong. I'm fully all for people to believe and act however they want- but the important caveat is if those actions/beliefs are of the damaging sort. If you are going to harm another or yourself, then it's something that is unequivocally wrong.

The sticking point comes, unfortunately, in the definition of harm. It's one of those "I know it when I see it" sort of things.

@Surasanji
I agree, for the most part. Not sure I agree that self-harm is wrong. While it is something we should try to prevent I do feel people have a right to self-harm if they wish without being deemed an immoral actor.

But for the most part I think we agree.

@hashtaggrammar @commandelicious

@freemo @hashtaggrammar @commandelicious

Yeah, that's why it's one of those 'I know it when I see it thing'.

For instance: Someone who is a smoker. They are harming themselves. They do not really need an intervention or anyone to step in to protect them.

However, what about the guy who wants to jump off a building in a suicide attempt? They, in that moment, truly believe what they're doing is the right course of action. I've been very close to that place, before.

I know it when I see it.

@Surasanji @freemo @hashtaggrammar @commandelicious

But can you use a person's subjective knowing-when-seeing as the rule?

I think something more objective is required so people can agree on what they know as they see and so people know themselves when they're crossing the line of acceptable discourse.

@SecondJon
Well either that or when you "see it" a moderator talks to the person first to get them to stop doing whatever the amoral act happens to be. As long as you don't insta-ban then strict codified and objective rules arent needed.

With that said not having objective rules can be a turn off to a potential new user since they dont really know if their personal expression is one that is later going to be held against them or if they will be demanded to stop later. Once they are already invested and a few thousand posts in they may not want to find out they are on the wrong instance for them.

@Surasanji @hashtaggrammar @commandelicious

@freemo
That's true. And that's a big benefit of how Mastodon is set up - we know we're here at the discretion of the moderator(s) of the instance. I joined because I thought the rules at #qoto are great - very straightforward and objective. Thanks!
@Surasanji @hashtaggrammar @commandelicious

@Surasanji
Well i think there is a difference between what is wrong and what needs an intervention.

I dont think suicide is morally wrong. It should be prevented however because I dont think it is what is best for the person, so trying to help them is a good move even if they arent morally deficient in their choice.

@hashtaggrammar @commandelicious

@freemo @hashtaggrammar @commandelicious

I don't think suicide is morally wrong, either. I'm largely amoral, to be completely honest. What is correct for one situation is not correct for a different situation.

As I've hinted before, I'm more into philosophical integrity. I like the consistency therein. I feel consistency in application of one's philosophy/morality/ethics is very important.

@Surasanji @freemo @hashtaggrammar @commandelicious without moralizing on suicide or self harm, it seems that some idiot could find it fun to make the apology of suicide or self harm. One guy once deserves support. A whole tribe of self harm advocates probablt should be banned...

@Surasanji @freemo @hashtaggrammar
My morality shall not infringe on your freedom.
(Except if so decided by the community at large (i.e. please wear clothes ...)

@commandelicious
Mob justice is exactly what we saw with wil wheaton. It doesnt work too well IMO.

@Surasanji @hashtaggrammar

I start with the belief that people are doing the best they know how for the best they know of in pursuit of, what is probably a shared goal somewhere, and those shared goals allow us to communicate.

Sadly our US politicians now sound like anonymous commenters on a polarized website; I'd like to be the opposite.

I now regularly have very enjoyable and (I think) productive discussions about politics with people who have never voted the same way as I have. I've learned and hopefully they have as well. There's much to be gained by being excellent to each other and being willing to engage rather than ban.

Of course there's a line - I've heard it called "The Overton Window", the range of ideas tolerated in public discourse; but I think we really ought to have as wide of an overton window as possible. Just because I think something is a bad idea, doesn't mean discussion of it should be banned.

If I'm not allowed to discuss my ideas, I am less likely to understand if they're wrong or could use adjustment. I may be not allowed legally or by formal banning or public shaming, or whatever, so I tend to be opposed to all of those.