@Kestrel said in Tyche Banned:
Yeah I really don't care one bit that Tyche broke rules, I care that his politics are disgusting and that as a society we seem to think such things are more sacred than the actual human lives they systemically oppress.
Sometimes those in the seats of power are presented with a situation where a person has done something vile and repugnant which causes the proposal of a law meant to address the same. In the late 1700s, this was the murder of children born out of wedlock. Would-be fathers were procuring drugs and poisons to give to their mistresses, with or without their consent, to cause miscarriages in order to avoid the consequences of their actions. And with men out in the battlefield with lonely wives, this was causing a great deal of scandal in the Western World. (I'm looking at you, Aaron Burr.)
So in 1803, Lord Ellenborough in England passed a law for "the further prevention of malicious shooting and attempting to discharge loaded fire-arms, stabbing, cutting, wounding, poisoning and the malicious using of means to procure the miscarriage of women[.]" Prior to that abortions, which were considered the "intentional miscarriage of women," were either considered misdemeanors or not crimes at all and not well-defined under common law. The law found its way into the United States and, around 1820, several jurisdictions began passing similar laws. Back then the laws were targeted at apothecaries and physicians, but by the mid 1840s New York had criminalized the act if taken by a woman.
This is the rhetorical slippery slope of policy setting. When people in power take a stand as to what ideas are permitted and not permitted, this infringes on the idea of speaking freely and safely. As it pertains to this forum, we have promoted the idea of speaking freely and safely even if what we say is objectionable or repugnant. The Hog Pit is a good example of our tolerance for that sort of speech, which has little political value but a lot of stress-release value.
Obviously, the consequences of banning a member is different than criminalizing abortions. Still, when moderators have taken a stand on something, it justifiably causes a furor that demands addressing. This occurred when we debated the alteration of rules in the Hog Pit and continues to cause us moderators some consternation. This is because we are human and fallible, yet are compelled to be models of conduct here, which we are not. I know I am not (and will not pretend to be anything less than a well-programmed feline automaton).
Tyche is a good example. No one is required to argue in good faith, even outside of the Hog PIt where our arguments are sometimes admittedly-surfeit but without reason. No one is required to adopt a thinking or morality that is accommodating, tolerant, or accepting. You can be as racist, sexist, or *ist as you want to be, but our rule is that you do not communicate or express such ideas here intentionally or in a way that is meant to target a particular group. And he crossed that line, in our opinion.
Taking a position is difficult and sometimes justifying it is more so. This is not the case here. We found that he knew what he was doing and saying, but ignored the rule regardless and the time came to put an end to it.
