Locutus of Bored wrote:
Which is why I'd give a friendly to tone it down if things got out of hand. But I don't think it should be automatically warnable. It depends on the context, the severity, and the justification for the comment IMO. There's nothing wrong with being genuinely angry with a politician and insulting them as a result if you can at least present a cogent argument to justify your anger.
I mean, that's the slippery slope of all slippery slopes if we're going to start mandating that not only is flaming posters not allowed, but flaming people who aren't even members here. Are we supposed to start giving warnings to people who say Michael Jackson is a pedophile? Some may find it offensive, and it can be trolling if it's said in a memorial thread for no reason other than to rile people up, but should the opinion not even be allowed to be stated? If people say B&B are idiots, is that warnable? If you call a Voyager character ugly, aren't you also insulting the person playing the character? I don't think anyone wants to go down that road.
In Michael Jackson's case, yes, it should be warnable because Jackson was never convicted of any crime. Unreservedly accusing someone of committing a criminal act, especially one as disgusting as sexually assaulting children, is an extremely dangerous and damaging act.
Call me old fashioned, but I still believe in innocent until proven guilty.