President Donald Trump went off the rails when asked about California wildfires during his first full day in office. He claims city officials are diverting "limitless" water to the ocean through a "massive valve."
I will say that although obviously my opinion doesn’t matter (I’m just some guy on the internet, right), I think that it is deeply counter productive to ban the use of a word a) so completely innocuous and b) in all circumstances regardless of context. We must try not to be dogmatists, after all. The useage of the word is very important is it not. One would not ban a person for saying the word ‘nazi’, for example, (and here is the really important bit) in most contexts. If the person were to make a statement that suggests beyond reasonable doubt that they support nazi actions, then we could probably reasonably suggest that they receive a ban. In such a case they have demonstrated opinions that fall beyond the contract in which we engage by using a forum like this one.
Similarly: consider my useage of the banned word above. Ask yourself not if it was offensive, because offense unless deeply intentional is subjective. Ask yourself instead if the useage was malicious. Ask yourself if it demonstrated an intent to breach the social contract. Consider this. And consider the value of enforcing arbitrary rules in a dogmatic sense, which is to say in a thoughtless sense, without consideration beyond the plain text. Ask yourself how best you can serve your community, and how you can serve those who try to make use of it. Remember that we are all of us here united in our interest in free and authentic (social) media, away from the propaganda and talking points that have become commonplace elsewhere. We make genuine attempts to communicate, and banning any useage of a single word regardless of content is extremely silly.
Removed by mod
I will say that although obviously my opinion doesn’t matter (I’m just some guy on the internet, right), I think that it is deeply counter productive to ban the use of a word a) so completely innocuous and b) in all circumstances regardless of context. We must try not to be dogmatists, after all. The useage of the word is very important is it not. One would not ban a person for saying the word ‘nazi’, for example, (and here is the really important bit) in most contexts. If the person were to make a statement that suggests beyond reasonable doubt that they support nazi actions, then we could probably reasonably suggest that they receive a ban. In such a case they have demonstrated opinions that fall beyond the contract in which we engage by using a forum like this one.
Similarly: consider my useage of the banned word above. Ask yourself not if it was offensive, because offense unless deeply intentional is subjective. Ask yourself instead if the useage was malicious. Ask yourself if it demonstrated an intent to breach the social contract. Consider this. And consider the value of enforcing arbitrary rules in a dogmatic sense, which is to say in a thoughtless sense, without consideration beyond the plain text. Ask yourself how best you can serve your community, and how you can serve those who try to make use of it. Remember that we are all of us here united in our interest in free and authentic (social) media, away from the propaganda and talking points that have become commonplace elsewhere. We make genuine attempts to communicate, and banning any useage of a single word regardless of content is extremely silly.
I may start using that word again, only in the context of MAGA.