instead of reverting to your dogmatic principles, I will ask you to instead consider why someone might dislike having their interest called "objectively harmful and masochistic".
Assuming ‘interest’ refers to ‘thing that one has an interest in doing’ and not ‘thing one is epistimologically interested in’, and with effort to make as few other assumptions about the containing conversation as possible, and with effort to list only those which apply to the whole set of possible containing conversations instead of those which apply only to a subset, consideration has revealed that possible reasons include:
- The claim is incorrect.
- The claim is incorrect, and others are ignorant of why and therefore think it's correct.
- Unexpected acquiration of new information requires planchanging.
These are all of the reasons i can think of.
I concede that it may be difficult, for one reason or another, to consider how what you say affects another person. but when they tell you how it affects them, you should actually listen to them.
I do this. If the affectation is harmful, as i assume you are implyïng, there are multiple methods of solving that; halting saying of that thing is one option, but making the saying of that thing not cause the harmful affectation is also an option; my own past experience has shown that if the latter is possible, it is most optimal to pursue it long-term.
if you can't understand this, we might have to just ban you. again. indefinitely. oh, how unethical!
I have been complying with that already. All punitive criminal justice systems are immoral.
consider the fact that I mean words the way I mean them, not the way you mean them. when I say "kind and appropriate", I mean "kind and appropriate" by my standards, not by yours. I am expecting you to adhere to "kind and appropriate" by my standards.
Then it is your responsibility to comprehensively and unambiguously elucidate what you mean by that, extending such elucidation upon requests for clarification, so that all subordinate to power may know that the enforcement of the law is consistent and knowable.
I propose we create a second channel, with a policy similar to what I have described, on a trial basis, for a period of say 2 weeks. After that, we can discuss its efficacy. If it isn't working, we can unimplement it again.
I'm all aboard hanging a question mark on our assumptions and testing ideas by experiment, but is 2 weeks a sufficient sample size?