In case you didn’t notice, I’ve not once debated the “offending topic” with MagsJ once since she issued the warning, because she said she’d ban me.
To bring up my other thread in rant is a disingenuous example of the seriousness of this censorship. I challenged her to debate her repeated slander that my argument was one sided and circular
Creative writing because it is the place I’d be least likely to get banned in the public forums, regardless of how delicately I treat the topic.
Mags is under no obligation to debate you or to be convinced by your arguments. She may well go on believing that your argument is circular or incoherent, and that’s her right.
As for placement, you’re not doing creative writing, right? You’re doing some variety of philosophy? I suggest it start it in the Sandbox.
But look, Ecmandu: start it fresh. Don’t call out Mags. Don’t be inflammatory. Write is slowly, proofread it and edit into sentences and paragraphs. Put yourself into the shoes of your audience and try to anticipate what we won’t understand. You know you’re talking about things that you can’t talk about anywhere else. Think about why that is, and balance the legitimate concerns against effectively communicating your ideas. You know that what you’re trying to say is upsetting for people, so do what you can to intellectualize it and avoid upsetting people.
This isn’t carte blanche; you’ve tried and failed to present this idea idea in a way that’s acceptable in the main forums, so you are under advisement that you need to approach it differently.
If the lines aren’t clear (and I acknowledge that balancing tests are never perfectly clear), I’d be happy to proofread a draft of any post and either bless it or explain in specific how it’s crossing the same lines.
Thanks for offering a way forward and hi-lighting the delicacy and tact needed in discussing such topics, and also the need to debate in good faith… whether there is agreement or not.
But this actually is true. You’re a weird guy who has ridiculous ideas that are clearly outside the bounds of reason and you’re really combative about them.
Either way, it is true that that is not an argument directed at an idea.
Locking this, as I should have days ago.