🇳🇱
@doot I think its important to include the full context here... the wording is specifically:
> No "hate speech", speech that nefariously expresses a form of prejudice or threatens a people of a protected characteristic (such as age, disability, ethnicity, gender, pregnancy, religion, sex or sexuality - unpopular opinions
voiced respectfully is fine).
What is being said here is that no hate speech or attacks or anything of that sort are allowed against any of the protected and marginalized groups... **outside** of that if you have an opinion which is not an attack on one of these groups, but people just dont like it, then its fine.
Forcing people to only speak popular opinions and banning people for unpopular ones is highly problematic IMO. As long as you are respectful, and do not disenfranchize marcganialized groups I think not having fear of being banned just for being unpopular is a good thing.
I'd be happy to hear your opinions on why "you can only say popular things" would be a good thing?
@freemo @doot ngl, that rule reads really sinister to me
Like, "no hate speech" is a great rule. And adding a definition of hate speech is a great idea.
But why add "unpopular opinions are OK"? No reasonable person would think "no hate speech" will censor your magnum opus thread about why Jar-Jar is Good Actually, so the only way that addition makes any sense is if "unpopular opinions" means "shall we just discuss if scientific racists might have a point tho, just to check they don't ofc".
This seems like a huge leap in reasoning... it is not an exceptional clause, it is a qualifying clause.. that is, a clause which **explains** a thing, rather than providing an **exception** to a thing. This clause **explains** that outside of derogatory speech unpopular opinions that are not derogatory wont get you in trouble. I do agree this clause shouldnt be neccesary but sadly a large portion of admins are fairly abusive with how they block and so, it is.
