by 0xbc02db030361121dd43bbb2fcbcb4f9f98c1dc7d (Legislator)
This is the message I get, when tried to log into my Decentraland Forum account.
“Account suspended until November 1, 2024: Baiting, trolling and gender-phobic statements”
I believe we need to establish clear guidelines and make the forum more decentralised. Since when sharing one’s personal beliefs, views & opinions on gender related topics gets people banned from a community forum.
Foundation & DAO have given too much power to whoever is in control of the forum.
For the past year almost all my messaged get flagged and deleted?
I’m guessing the only right answer here is “invalid question”, because I don’t think the DAO community has the power to override the code of ethics. So I’ll just use this as an opportunity to promote understanding.
If you’re wondering why people would see your statements as “baiting, trolling and gender-phobic”, the first question I’d ask is, do you actually want to know? Not just looking for confirmation of what you already believe…but genuinely open to seeing yourself from a different perspective?
If so, let’s schedule a long-form discussion on an X space. Too much is lost in text. Just you and me. I’m not expecting you to put up with an ambush by every heckler or self-appointed member of the accountability police. Just looking to discuss your perspective, your ideal vision for DCL, and maybe help you understand the perspectives of others. You don’t always have to agree with something to fully understand it, right?
You can insult, harass and attack people for their ideas for months until something may actually be done about it but make any comment about gender and be banned immediately even if true.
Lovely place we’ve created here.
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
A lot of ideologues will use this “paradox of tolerance” against anyone who disagrees with their views, and ironically won’t add what Popper said next, which adds a lot of really important context.
I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
Essentially the gauge for when we stop tolerating intolerance should be when someone is not willing to discuss their ideas and cannot be reasoned with.
That’s why I offered up an open discussion. Because if we can’t talk about these topics openly and respectfully as humans trying to understand one another, or if we can, and that discussion is shut down or people refuse to listen to it and reason with their own beliefs, then that would give us a pretty good idea of who is being intolerant.