Comment by noduerme

FWIW, the things I've been warned, banned, and hell-banned for on this site have never struck me as consistent enough in their application that I could discern a pattern other than the fact that I'm usually drunk and belligerent when I write them. The fact that they happen to be railing against powers that be isn't too unusual; I would have quit the site if I thought I couldn't speak my mind, as long as I speak it in ways that contribute to the conversation and aren't just throwing grenades. Don't get me wrong, I love intelligent flame wars. But on reflection, I actually more appreciate the components of a good flame war that fall into the discussion category rather than the truth paradigm. At least, y'know, there's a time and place, and there are well-defined rules. If a site says it's interested in X and you're interested in Y, at least they've made their preferences clear. In a free market they survive or they don't. I think that imagining that it's lesser to seek curiosity/discussion (which are fairly concrete, defined parameters) than to seek truth/fairness (and here we get into a kind of Romantic vs Enlightenment argument as to whether these words align with particular actions) is to try to stake a higher ground on vague claims of higher "morality" which some might agree with, others not so much, but which don't ultimately aid in the day-to-day function of moderation unless someone decides what "truth" is. Personally I'd rather take the beating of being banned for saying something rude or unhelpful than I would take a beating on a site where someone gets to decide what's true or fair.