LABAL

You seem to dance around the point I'm trying to make, so let me be completely clear: I don't care what feels right. I only care what is right. And deciding for everyone what they should or should not be offended with is absolutely not right. People may not even think twice about a certain phrase, but you've decided it's BAD and set the rules, so now it should be bad for everyone. Do you see the problem? The dangerous part of that practice is that it meets resistance that organically emerges from the whole structure. People start making up new words, the banned words are deemed even more offensive, the frustration grows, people lash out more, try to bait each other into saying something that was RULED BAD. The "comfort" in the community as a whole diminishes as a result. Analogy time: The wildfires are a natural phenomenon that occurred even before humanity has set its foot on... anything. But have you heard of the "Smokey Bear effect"? I could probably cross-reference some exact dates if I did some digging, but essentially this is what took place: There was a large campaign in the United States that started around 40's or 50's dedicated to prevention of forest fires. It worked really well for a rather long time. Enough time, in fact, for the forest to grow extra dense and for the undergrowth to get extra flammable (see where my analogy comes in, eh? eh?), so the very next major fire that happened caused many times the damage that a series of normal forest fires would. Sigh... Can't you just let thinking people solve minor disputes on their own instead of highly regulating and limiting the ways they can communicate? Or is it just too late and there's too few thinking people left in your opinion? Yes, people do tend to overreact momentarily, especially nowadays, now that they've been sheltered for so long, but how are you supposed to make real friends when you're not even allowed to make a crude joke that they might have laughed at? Besides, I've always been taught that rudeness is disrespect towards oneself and not the opponent. I'd only make myself look bad. And I do, occasionally, make myself look bad. This is, after all, a part of the learning experience. Is this really hopeless? Am I alone?

By that same logic let's outright EXILE everyone we don't agree with. I mean, the logic is exactly the same, it's just that the scale is different. It's not just "social repercussions" when a person is prevented from speaking further. But I get it. They can outright refuse the service if something you said is not to their liking. They can do that, that's not even a question. It's even practical to a point. The real question is: Is it necessary? The action is taken immediately, without giving the offending party the opportunity to continue in such manner, but also preventing them from explaining themselves and possibly sharing the crucial information that could completely flip our understanding of the previous statement. While it prevents the potential chain reactions, the practice essentially equates a person who just momentary lost their composure due to immense frustration, or even a person who accidentally triggered a word combination deemed offensive in completely different context, to a repeat offender who has nothing better to do other than harass people for no apparent reason.

Only if you follow the logic of "No speech = no problem" Because the censorship is rather strict. Anyway, what's the point of censoring people if anyone can mute them manually at any time in exactly two clicks, even the spam? I mean, aside from the outright illegal stuff like scams and attempts at trading IRL stuff. If you're just rude to someone, do you really need any more punishment than other people thinking you're a jerk and refusing to talk to you? Are the broad range suspensions really necessary?

Why is your kickbot programmed to emulate hurt feelings? You write a single word in the whole phrase in caps, it deletes the whole thing and directly insults you. You respond to it, it immediately suspends you from all channels.