>>27
In terms of timeline of the wider events that led to the aforementioned boom, that thread would have largely preceded it. I am not claiming such things didn't exist, I am claiming that they were previously much less common and popular than they are today, which is an important distinction. Citing this as a refutation of my point demonstrates a lack of understanding on why I oppose the OP to such an extreme degree in the first place. I'll say it as many times as necessary, I am interested in preservation and not change.
Again, it seems like your deliberately trying to manipulate what is being said by playing games with the scope of the argument. The "people" I refer to are those who go from place to place spreading their ideology. Their M.O. is typically to embed themselves somewhere, complain that the place is intolerant or "ist" or "phobic" etc., attack the original members as being so as well, and eventually destroy it through a combination of alienating the userbase and restricting what is allowed to be said to an extreme degree that the intended topic for the entire site is all but lost. They then leave and repeat the process for the next place. It's been described as a sort of social cancer, but I prefer to think of it as a weaponized version of "death of a hobby", if you've seen that little comic.
I wouldn't know why people start those sorts of threads, I am not them, and as such any explanation I can provide would be little more than a guess.
And the insults are already leaking in, which I'm probably also guilty of without realizing. This is deliberately charged language, and seems designed to trap me. Let me respond by posing a different question: If places A, B, and C have restrictions like the ones I so fervently hate, and places X, Y, and Z have hands off moderation like what I am trying to argue for, than it can be understood that there is a relative balance. But if ABC tries to push their restrictions on XYZ, its natural that XYZ would respond as though it were a threat, right? And likewise ABC would be justified in the reverse situation. Ultimately, you can tell which is happening by what changes are being called for. In this case, what I see as more restrictive policies in moderation are being advocated for, and as someone who dearly loves XYZ I perceive this as a dire threat to what I care about. The magnitude of the threat at the moment does not concern me, because I am deeply terrified of it spreading. This is why I am so aggressive in attempting to destroy it when I see it.
As for "shitting up random websites" I find many websites and lurk every day to decide if that place is something that is for me. I don't advocate for places to change as you seem to imply or as OP demands.
>>28
I am not strawmanning whatsoever. Giant wall of text though this post may be, I do have a point informed by experience. Giving an inch and taking a mile, as they say. It starts with "be more tolerant" and ends with an exodus. This escalation is what I am concerned with. I will admit that I have a large number of issues with transsexualism and the "treatments" given to those affected. This is not something that informs my argument, as I would be this vitriolic over literally any similar call regardless of which groups were involved.
In general, I will concede that moderation is necessary. As mentioned by others, things like gorilla posting are rightfully deleted and just posting the word nigger does nothing for good discussion or board quality. Perhaps I am being too aggressive in my approach in making my case over the course of this thread, and maybe there is a middle ground on the issue that can be reached. I feel very strongly about this issue though, and my concern is only deepened by some of the responses which seem to be in full support of OP and dismiss anything to the contrary without even considering it. I want, above all things, for the board to be good and not to fall victim to the same fate as so many others because of what I can only describe as virtue signalling.