Some people think that Chris Christie is much too out of shape to effectively hold office...

[MADem]

24. I am not talking about "best practices" or "best approaches" here.

I am talking about this insistence that some feel they have the absolute right to demand that they must always be "unoffended." That's a very different perspective.

People in the real world DO notice how people behave and look. They comment on it. Their comments may not always be kind. I am not making this up--this is simple truth, and we all know it.

If we want DU to be an "offense free" zone, it will suck. I am "offended" that others are trying to shut down conversations because they are offended by some things that are said. It "offends" my First Amendment sensibilities that people can't just walk away from a conversation they don't like, or make their point without saying some variation of "SHUT UP! Don't say that! I don't like it, so we cannot have it here!!!"

Sure, we have an overarching TOS here that we all agree to before we walk in the door, that keeps out the GOP assholes, and that's fine, and we have guidelines for forums and groups, where some are safe havens and you've got to mind your P's and Q's in those, but beyond that, people ought to be able to discuss subjects like we would in The Real World without the Fickle Finger of Alert constantly hovering over them. If you don't like what someone says, argue it out with them. You will make your point, your sparring partner will rebut, and if you do it well, you may change a mind.

Or maybe not--the point is, telling people they are "bad" and shutting down their conversation for noticing someone's appearance, conduct, or what-have-you will only cause them to resent the finger wagger. It won't be good for DU, either.

This is the internet--we need thick skins and debating skills, not anxious fingers smacking that alert link every time we get our nose out of joint.