Well it’s strongly implied.

I’m just rephrasing it to frame it as a command. That’s basically what a rule is. A command. A rule has imperativeness.

We’re shooting for good qualities and bad qualities here. Like 2 lists.

True. But if they censor you then they’re a censor.

You can trust the uninformed to express their own will truthfully at least. (Unless they’re convinced to side with an authority). There’s a reliable truth there. I guess that’s the rock of democracy.

Is this good or bad?

Imagine a censor who thinks that all of his weird dogmatic opinions are pure golden truth picking over your conversations and rewriting or removing everything he doesn’t like. A rather stupid, sloppy censor who couldn’t get the point if it was underlined twice.

Imagine what your posts would convey then.

“Don’t make me ban you!” Isn’t a rule.

A rule would be “don’t say anything I dislike”

That’s one legal implementation of the idea.

The actual idea goes something like : speech that flows freely without inhibition.

If you intend to wax pedantic then at least give us your definition. This secondhand linked pedantry crosses the line.

Good : It makes the conversation intelligent and sane.

Bad : People sometimes say bad things.

Contrary to popular belief, reality is not a videogame.

Every fact stands on an axiom.

Every axiom stands on a judged observation.

Every judgment stands on a feeling.

On second thought, forget it. This is pointless

My view : meditation is a thing that you do with your awareness.

We have two techniques. The concentration, and the observing while refraining from moving your awareness thing.

Both lead to stillness although via different means.

One shrinks, the other grows.

Gorilla bukake factory?

There’s this tape called frog tape. It’s quite amazing. Uses powerful science

And gorilla tape can remove your skin

And silicone tape fuses to itself molecularly

Like what? Spit? Poop? Semen?

I would leave the comments and allow the clash to occur. We just want to talk honestly and openly. We prefer straightforward conflict to your censorial “fostering”.

Removing my replies because of “reports” and “because it could be interpreted as hostile” is a bullshit excuse.

Pretending that Rowling isn’t a favorite hate-fetish of this mob is bullshit too.

Your feigned obliviousness combined with your willynilly censorship is bullshit.

You like bullshit.

We had shovels in the stone age.