Perhaps grow a little thicker hide? Many here appear to be similar to the princess on the pea …
Two thing strike me about discussions such as this.
The first is that the "debate" - or "discussion" - such as it is - tends to fall into two distinct camps, or sides, or perspectives.
And the second is that not only do these sides, or perspectives have different opinions on what constitutes have online
debate, or discussion, but - tellingly - that they even choose to express these perspectives or opinions, quite differently.
To my mind, the actual argument is quiet straightforward: You attack - or dispute - or contend - the position, not the person, and especially refrain from attacking a person on the basis of something they are (such as - gay, female, black) rather than what they stand for, or positions they hold.
Again, I reiterate that it should be entirely possible to express yourself in discussions and debate without recourse to crude epithets, insult and offensive language.
Retreating that people "should grow a thicker skin" misses the point that individuals should not be insulted - as opposed to argued with, called out on, and challenged - in the first place.
Not only is the vocabulary of the English language rich enough to allow adequately for nuances of disagreement, and dislike, to be expressed, but it also allows for robust argument without recourse to profanity.
More to the point, the whole point of the kind of crude epithets, and vulgar and profoundly offensive terms used by some here is to signal a clear lack of respect for those with whom they debate and with whom they differ. Very often, that is merely offensive insult disguised as argument.
Those who argue for the right to use untrammelled speech tend to cite a number of arguments in support of their position.
One, is the old First Amendment argument - namely that any attempt to curtail what is said is an infringement of the right to free speech.
My answer is that what one says is not suppressed, but that how you say it should be constrained by some degree of consideration and courtesy.
Then, there are the complaints about "political correctness gone mad".
In truth, "political correctness" arose out of a recognition that language is not (and was not) neutral. It has long been used by more powerful and influential groups to define those less powerful in ways that often further diminished and undermined them. The powerful defined the less powerful.
Political correctness challenged this, and made people more aware of how language is also a tool of power, and that how it is used affects perceptions and attitudes, - to minorities, gays, women, people of colour - and that if it is used in a clearly disrespectful manner, it should be challenged.
It is about reclaiming language, and making those who would prefer to use derogatory terms in a casually contemptuous manner - or terms that are perceived by those thus addressed as derogatory - think twice before doing so.
Some people do not like this, and have railed against "political correctness" precisely because it challenges their assumed right - a privilege - to offer insult based on race, gender, or ethnicity.
Again, while I accept that the mods are volunteers, and that the unsettled and divisive political environment offers its own particular challenges - I think that the forums could have been a lot more proactive in policing language.
By not calling it out, you are condoning it and enabling it and facilitating it. Worst of all, you are normalising it.
Courtesy suggests a respect: Discourteous words attacking the people rather than the position - make it clear that an expression of contemptuous anger is all that is desired, and to allow this tone - let alone the unpleasant content - to come a new norm, a new standard, in the forum, would be unfortunate.
