Sculli said:
I think it will come down to intend, and interpretation.
For example: "I fucking hate gays, especially gay women, those fucking ragmunchers will burn in hell for their sins", is clearly unacceptable.
"Based on my beliefs I can not agree to homosexuality, it is a sin and those who practice it will go to hell", on the other hand would be acceptable.
Unless you're also prepared to allow someone to say:
"Based on my beliefs, I truly believe that black people are genetically inferior to white people..."
... Rather than a typical racist expletive, then I don't think this policy will work out to be nearly as fair as you're hoping. I doubt you'd be willing to go this far, no matter whether the new rules dictate you should. Most of the community would be calling for the person's head.
If you are willing to take it to that length, well, kudos on your dedication, but then again ... you're taking the community to a place of cold neutrality not all may be comfortable with. It's possible for the
belief itself to be the "evil" thing you want to avoid; the thing that's going to drag down the rest of the community, and needs to be ejected from the forum ... it wouldn't matter how 'nicely' that belief was put. A person who takes on that belief using the word "jackass" is comparitively "the good side." In this scenario, however, he'd suffer some sort of punitive measure.
The simple truth is, being forced to dignify such an argument with a "respectful," "civil" rebuttal is
insulting. It's placing it on an equal ground with the other side, which is a position such thinking simply does not deserve. It's okay to admit this. This is one situation in which "the wrath of the mob," at least on a VERBAL level (I'm not talking about throwing such people to an actual, angry mob) may be the best solution. Such a person is a jackass, and one should be allowed to be truthful about it.
What's more, it's entirely possible to conceal the most acidic, hurtful, biting flame in history in a cloak of civil language. Actually, I'd have to say that those that do so are by far the most effective. I think we've simply added a layer of dishonesty which people need to give their garbage a tone of official protection.
I understand you're trying to allow the greatest amount of free speech imaginable, while still keeping some sense of dignity within the community. This might work; I don't know. I've got to admit, I don't have a workable solution. I'm simply questioning whether or not this notion of "civil argument" is really worthy of the pedestal that we've placed it on, here. Nobody doubts that:
"I believe that the Bible says that all native African races bear the mark of Cain, and are therefore worthy of scorn and contempt..."
... is really a fancy way of saying:
"I hate black people."
Trust me. They're precisely the same; I'm the king of putting things in "fancy ways." It's just that one will be allowed under the new system, and the other, the more honest and concise version, will not.
The flameboard might have had some negative side effects, but I think it was a better solution than this.
Have you ever seen George Carlin's bit about how the more words people use, the more politically correct they expect something to become, even when they're talking about the exact same thing? It's particularly true in this case.
