it's more about curating the quality of that "full range of human experience". i'm happy to have my views challenged and opinions changed, but i don't really have enough time to waste or much patience for mediocrity.
* Egalitarianism has entered the chat *
This is a platform for language-use and language is a collective product. You are literally censoring your way out of participation in language, which is the basis of the thing you are using to make an argument for censoring in the first place.
Maybe I am wrong, in that I dont understand how this forum forces you to spend much time arguing with people. Maybe you are just a slow reader, idk, but saying that something is mediocre seems like a psychological shorthand for ignorance. A lot of the human experience has to do with Catch 22's, and I would like to present a character by quoting a few paragraphs from a book with the same name:
"
Clevinger knew so much because Clevinger was a genius with a pounding heart and blanching face. He was a gangling, gawky, feverish, famish-eyed brain. As a Harvard undergraduate he had won prizes in scholarship for just about everything, and the only reason he had not won prizes in scholarship for everything else was that he was too busy signing petitions, circulating petitions and challenging petitions, joining discussion groups and resigning from discussion groups, attending youth congresses, picketing other youth congresses and organizing student committees in defense of dismissed faculty members. Everyone agreed that Clevinger was certain to go far in the academic world. In short, Clevinger was one of those people with lots of intelligence and no brains, and everyone knew it except those who soon found it out.
In short, he was a dope. He often looked to Yossarian like one of those people hanging around modern museums with both eyes together on one side of a face. It was an illusion, of course, generated by Clevinger’s predilection for staring fixedly at one side of a question and never seeing the other side at all. Politically, he was a humanitarian who did know right from left and was trapped uncomfortably between the two. He was constantly defending his Communist friends to his right-wing enemies and his right-wing friends to his Communist enemies, and he was thoroughly detested by both groups, who never defended him to anyone because they thought he was a dope.
He was a very serious, very earnest and very conscientious dope. It was impossible to go to a movie with him without getting involved afterwards in a discussion on empathy, Aristotle, universals, messages and the obligations of the cinema as an art form in a materialistic society. Girls he took to the theater had to wait until the first intermission to find out from him whether or not they were seeing a good or a bad play, and then found out at once. He was a militant idealist who crusaded against racial bigotry by growing faint in its presence. He knew everything about literature except how to enjoy it.
"
Now, is this personality type worth having, or should we ignore him/kill this personality type (remove from participation) just because we are annoyed?
