[mc32]

That's the problem with restricting speech. Who defines what is acceptable and not. You can't even say something along the lines of no hate or no harm or no threats as what those terms refer to can change over time and also by locale.

Slang in one place may refer to something rather innocuous and that same term may refer to something entirely different in a different place or dialect. Also some terms can be endearing in one place and quite crude on another.

So, unless one represents an official standard, like a company or a government, censoring content is a bit of a wild goose chase.

Now, that's not to say I want to read crude or hateful content, as I find it a turnoff, but the alternative on balance seems worse. I'd say leave it to the indiv communities and their admins to establish norms rather than a site wide policy.

When I go to reddit or another community, I want civility within the subcommunity I'm interested in, if an alternative community wants to spring up with a free for all approach, so be it.

[rustynails77]

That's a really insightful post. It's difficult to determine what is acceptable and what is not. I often find myself at odds, particularly around political correctness - where there seems to be a free pass for some people to be prejudiced without accountability.

The question I ask myself is whether or not they should be banned. I usually come to the conclusion that rebuttal is better than banning.

However, i'm also a fan of Karl Popper's don't tolerate the intolerant.

An example of the Intolerant, https://feministrag.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/remembering-the...