Post-truth has to be it.

Sorry I was working on the assumption that this was a place where all views responsibly expressed were welcome. From what you say only some views are welcome here. As I said at the beginning I don't agree with kiwi_guy at all. But I think that you manage somehow to morph compassion into intolerance. Remember he wasn't banned for what he had done but on the basis of some notion of what he might do. Anyway I accept that my comments relate entirely to my misunderstanding of what you are all here for. I'll bother you no more with the clearly unwelcome suggestion that views you disagree with might still be worth engaging with.

I've always assumed that virulent anti-abortion sentiment does not come from a happy place. Why do you think people act like that? Is some people's pain more important than others? The sub-issue is about moderation, fair play and freedom of speech. I've always thought that free speech is probably the single most important right in our society and we are all damaged when it is restricted. Blocking someone on the basis that they might say something upsetting in future while letting others speak is wrong at a very fundamental level.

There isn't any good system of rules or morality that punishes people for what they might do. If Russell is not around to moderate then comments should be shut down for everyone, not just intransigent "pro-lifers ".

Blocking is a bad call Russell. I agree with your views on the underlying issue entirely, but you can't exclude views you disagree with because he "might say something upsetting". You risk never learning anything if you only listen to views that make you feel nice. I thought Morgan's gentle mockery was an excellent approach.

So you "fucking hate" people who think morality should be easy, linear or logical? Can you see the problem here?