I. The Context.

I read something in the "Site Guidelines" that concerns me a little bit as I feel that what was stated was quite ambiguous. Obviously the Philosophy Forum reserves the right to terminate comments and users at their discretion, with or without a stated reason for doing so; however, the language regarding racism, xenophobia, nazi sympathizing, sexism, etc., seems a little worrying given the current political climate and I do feel clarity and resolution ought to be had.

II. The Minor Proposal (Main Proposal Shall Be In The Conclusion).

I propose that we clearly contextualize the terms (racism, sexism, etc.) for the moderators to properly enforce without infringing upon the intellectual freedom of philosophy. Philosophy is meant to be the market place of ideas; wherein, no topic is off limits so long as conversations are civil and logic serves as the ultimate standard of truth.

III. Example A.

Let me use an example of what might be regarded as sexism by some, but I feel should be a legitimately discussed philosophical proposal (whether I agree with such or not):

Example A: Certain ideas proposed by Sigmund Freud, and followed by J.D. Unwin, regarding the sublimation of sexual energy in men were argued to imply that the social expansion of sexual and political opportunity to women would result in the diffusion of sexual energy in men and result in societal collapse. Hence, according to such a view, egalitarianism or women's rights (as we understand them today) would be inherently destructive to society.

Now, the above would be regarded as sexist by many today, but I would argue that such is not "sexist" but a legitimate area of inquiry because the above case is grounded in actual argument, and in the case of J.D. Unwin, was a notion proposed by an early advocate of women's rights as a historical & psychological issue that needed to be resolved (so he was obviously not a misogynist). Thus, what ought to be regarded as sexism in philosophy forum threads; Should be when men or women discriminate against other members on the basis of their sex and/or insult them using slurs along such lines. The existence of male privilege for example, as much as I abhor this concept, should be considered a legitimate topic of discussion, just as the example above is. But if a young lady on a forum tries to close down a discussion on the grounds of "man-splaining," I think that should be regarded as sexism as much as if a man shuts down a woman because "a chick just wouldn't understand."

IV. Example B.

Example B: Another important example is homophobia, Divine Command Theory is a legitimate philosophical position (think of Aquinas and the moral argument) and has been frequently debated in public even in recent years (think of Sam Harris v. William Lane Craig at Notre Dame). Most proponents of divine command theory are either Christians or Muslims and most of the adherents to these two faiths subscribe to commands that prohibit homosexual conduct. I do not think the advocating of divine commands and the questioning of homosexual conduct on moral grounds in a thread should be a "terminable" offense because of being "homophobic." Rather, using homophobic slurs or taking discriminatory tactics on threads should be regarded as homophobic and should be terminable., and I say this as a person who's only brother is a homosexual.

V. The Nazi Question.

Likewise, with the fact that conservatives in America have been increasingly called Nazis when they are not National Socialists leads me to believe that we ought be careful with language like "Nazi Sympathezier." Regardless of what you think of the likes of Ann Coulter or Milo Yiannapolous, they are not Nazis and I would hate to think sympathizers with their worldviews would be punished for expressing philosopical ideas on the philosophy forum because some might slander them as "Nazi Sympathizers."

Obviously, we do not want the philosophy forum to turn into the Daily Stormer, so I have no problem with actual National Socialists or Neo-Nazi affiliates being targeted, but a Neo-Monarchist Ethno-Nationalist in favor of Tariffs would not be such a person and should not be punished for having Pepe the frog as his profile pic (so long as he conducts himself civilly and rationally).

VI. Conclusion and Main Proposal.

It seems absolutely insane to me, that because Giovanni Gentile argued in favor of Italian Fascism on the grounds of a robust Neo-Hegelian Idealism, etc., that we could not discuss the merits of his arguments, or that the ideas of the late Nietzsche could not be pondered or considered because of their often abhorrent character. To me, that seems to defy what philosophy is all about, should our forbears have outlawed discussion on the existence of God because such an inquiry could have been regarded as blasphemy?

I therefore advocate and propose the following as an explanation for the ambiguity in the Site Guidelines given the current political climate:

1. I Propose that discussions;regarding the nature and roles of the sexes, the nature of race, ethnicity, and nationhood, the validity or invalidity of immigration, the validity of any political theory of any kind, the morality of any practice sexual or otherwise, not be themselves regarded as inherently sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic etc., in and of themselves, for to do so would assume certain philosophical ideas yet to be proven or debated (such as feminism, post-colonialism, etc).

2. I Propose that only actions of an intentionally malevolent character, regarded as discriminatory, be defined (contextually speaking) as either racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc. That is, such designations ought to be reserved for actual ad-hominem attacks and discriminatory actions in threads.

3. I Propose that admitted and actual National Socialists or copy-cat Nazis alone be preemptively prohibited under the label Nazi or Nazi Sympathizer.

4. I Propose that no philosophical topic shall be off limits so long as its case be made and its merits (or lack thereof) be evaluated on the grounds of plain reason through civil discourse.

I am sure this is what is actually intended by the "Site Guidelines," but even it was not,I believe the above proposals should be the benchmark of philosophical discourse in the market place of ideas and debate. A place where logic is the ultimate standard of a position's validity and practical civility the crown of the philosopher himself.

I end with a poll,