@5, I wasn't saying that you wouldn't know what is what. That wasn't my argument. Go re-read what I said, assuming that was aimed at me. I was saying that the terms "political" and "religious" are far too vague (particularly religious). If your going to ban something, you should probably define what falls under that ban instead of leaving it open to interpretation by both the user base and admins/mods. It's definitely no dumb argument at all. Would you rather mods/admins have a narrowly-tailored list of what qualifies as political discussions that actually should be banned, or would you rather the users flood the mods with frivolous reports that a discussion is political because maybe it is but it's not actually toxic or harmful and could be a good thing? And as for religion? Yeah, definitely too vague. The 11th circuit court of appeals here in America spelled out exactly why:
11th court of appeals Judge Newsom wrote:The majority opinion says that the word “religious” has a “range of meanings.” That’s true, but colossally understated. Closer to the mark, I think, is the majority opinion’s recognition that the term “religious” is “inherent[ly] ambiguous.” Pretty much any criterion one can imagine will exclude faith or thought systems that most have traditionally regarded as religious.
Consider, for instance, one definition of “religious” that the majority opinion posits: “‘having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.’” That, as I understand things, would eliminate many Buddhists and Jains, among others. Or another: “‘belief in and reverence for a
supernatural power or powers as creator and governor of the universe.’” Again, I could be wrong, but I think many Deists and Unitarian Universalists would resist that explanation. And so it goes with other defining characteristics one might propose. Belief in the afterlife? I’m pretty sure that would knock out some Taoists, and presumably others, as well. Existence of a sacred text? My research suggests that at least in Japan, Shintoism has no official scripture. Existence of an organized “church” with a hierarchical structure?Neither Hindus nor many indigenous sects have one. Adherence to ritual? Quakers don’t. Existence of sacraments or creeds? Many evangelical Christians resist them. A focus on evangelization or proselytizing? So far as I understand, Jews typically don’t actively seek to convert non-believers.
Relatedly, what truly distinguishes “religious” speech from speech pertaining to other life-ordering perspectives? Where does the “religious” leave off and, say, the philosophical pick up? Is Randian Objectivism “religious”? See Albert Ellis, Is Objectivism a Religion? (1968). My gut says no, but why? How about “Social Justice Fundamentalism”? See Tim Urban, What’s Our Problem?: A Self-Help Book for Societies (2023). Same instinct, same caveat. Scientology? TM? Humanism? Transhumanism? You get the picture.
This is a significantly different context, but I'm pretty positive the underlying message still holds. Politics is generally a very, very broad term to encompass all kinds of things. Healthcare, gun control, legal reforms, advocacy, supporting people with disabilities, law, governance/political systems, international relations, the economy, electoral systems and elections, civil rights, conflict and peace studies, the environment.... You get the idea. I'm pretty sure many of the discussions in the general games room nowadays would fall under not just general gaming threads, but also make a political statement, in a way, as well.
As for NSFW topics? I haven't seen any. Can you link to one?
Edit: I think another problem with the banning political discussions argument is, of course, the fact it's being pushed by the same people who can't control themselves when they see an obviously political discussion to begin with, and who find it necessary to jump in and dogpile on the originator of the topic because they decided to talk about politics. So, in short, I also see a problem with this argument because (1) it's self-serving, (2) it's these members effectively asking the forum to control them for them (something the forum should NOT have to do), and (3) it's really looks like the rules are being weaponized to target individuals who may wish to just have an intelligent discussion with a minority of the world (a.k.a. disabled people) but can't because a minority on this forum see it necessary to attack people who start political discussions in every conceivable way because they don't like political discussions. Maybe a better idea might be to just ban the people who can't control themselves and see it necessary to devolve political topics into mudslinging instead of skipping it like any mature person would. I'm pretty sure that would accomplish the same objective as "banning political discussions", and make the forum less toxic at the same time. But I imagine this idea won't exactly be all that popular.
"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!]: 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out ?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." — Charles Babbage.
My Github
