> In public discussions there has to be some baseline ability by the reader to accept that they can be offended while the value of what was said to the rest of the audience may outweigh their own feelings. The implicit rules of what is acceptable to talk about, especially online, have been getting stricter to the point of being ridiculous in my experience.
Quite agree. Thus my proposal to create smaller, more controlled discussion groups. The larger the group, the more difficult it is to build a code of conduct that will satisfy all participants.
I think that's a great idea, at the very least it filters out a lot of spam and ideally gives you more context about each individual so if something controversial is said you can put it into context with them as a whole. I just worry that these smaller discussion groups are becoming more and more rare online, but maybe the current craziness will lead to their resurgence.
Quite agree. Thus my proposal to create smaller, more controlled discussion groups. The larger the group, the more difficult it is to build a code of conduct that will satisfy all participants.