I think the ban could’ve been justified if it had happened earlier, but I don’t see the point in banning them after everything had cooled down and soferman was behaving bettter. banning when everything is ok just makes more drama.

In my opinion, everyone should calm the fuck down, stop creating drama and instead provide some hard sources to back their claims. If you dispute a fact-checking website with another fact-checking website or a far-right source with a far-left source or vice versa, you’re not being unbiased, you’re doing the spiderman pointy-game.

yeah, totally agree. I’d love to see some good discussions and arguements instead of drama and fighting. some users suggested that maybe the current system is broken when it comes to discussing politics. because if a comment triggers me, the easiest thing for me to do is attacking the comment and downvoting it, doesn’t make the best of discussions in my opinion. another user suggested a method called adversarial collabration. so when two users have different opinions, they are asked to collabrate and write a single comment or essay about it, together. I think if we implement it and have strict rules forbidding personal attacks, sarcasm, and hostility, we will see a much better exchange of ideas. people would have to explain their underlying values that shape their current view on the subject, why they trust a source and why they don’t trust some, why they think something is justified etc. we can have a community dedicated to this, and if the results turn out to be better than c/worldnews, we can implement it there. if we fail we won’t lose anything, but if we succeed we have fixed the problem with voicing different ideas on reddit like platforms.