>I'd hate to lose #1 because of #2.
MrB,
Context and intent enter the picture. Vulgarity in the absolute sense may not be a valid basis for sending one "to the jailhouse", so to speak.
>But somebody has to judge. And if SI doesn't want to, who will?
>It's really messy banishing people because of something said
All this is true, especially the "messy" part. However, what is the alternative to getting things messy? Near-total anarchy is the only alternative if SI doesn't get involved unless it's an extreme case.
It seems to me that we're looking at restrained and messy liberty on the one hand, versus anarchy and abuse of the system on the other.
But regardless of the extent of any imposed limits, or the absence of limits, kooks must be dealt with! Even if that means ignoring them. Even if it means SI won't help, on any level other than the extreme.
Us folks in the trenches are dealing with kooks, in one way or another, on a daily basis. If SI won't help except in extreme cases, then we're left to either do the dirty work ourselves, or tolerate abusive and dangerous posts.
Having said all this, I'm not so sure SI won't help. Where did that assumption come from? :-)
It all gets back to the title of this thread...how to best deal with kooks. I think there is no ideal way to go about it. But some ways are much more appropriate than others. Who is willing to help by getting involved, and who isn't, is all part of the dilemma.
Thanks for your insightful comments.
Ice
|
