I can't agree with her as F.Nietzsche was male. Tragedy of quotes torn out of context: picture a so-called zombie company is it better to keep it alive with governmental alimentation in eternity or shut it down immediately with all the negative consequences? Nietzsche would say close it asap.
I disagree, any conversation on a public forum is not private and should adhere to basic standards of courtesy.

I think he's probably right. Based on my experience of trying to help people break out of drug addictions, I came to the conclusion that this is a waste of time and instead of living my only life in pleasure and improving my life and bringing joy to my family, I spend all my energy on useless attempts to improve someone else’s life.

Bro, telling someone to kill themselves is not cool, specially on the internet where a lot of context tends to be missing and you never know the consequences of a throwaway comment, you might accidentally push someone over the edge and into actually ending themselves.
There's always the option to use "go fuck yourself" if you're that pissed off which is roughly about as hurtful without the implied call to committing suicide. Don't act like the correct position to have is to be completely emotionally detached, words can have a tangible effect on people, have some empathy.

Also, what do you mean by private conversation? This is a forum, any conversation on a forum is public by default.

It wasn't a private conversation. It was a public argument on the forum here in this community
The question was not about punishment but about how we, as a community, can deal in the best possible way with the violence of words against people of this community.
Amano wasn't trying to change anyone. He was just asking if we felt the very short suspension was an adequate.

It depends on the context. Most of the time, those comments are just stupid emotional comments and they regret it later on. If I was moderating this site, I wouldn't give too much importance to such a thing, as long as it is a singular occurrence.

However, if that person keeps being annoying consistently, there should be some kind of punishment, but not an instant ban, unless they don't learn their lesson after repeated temporal suspensions. There are rules for a reason, and it is for things to remain civil. Leave any site without any rules or with way too liberal ones and see how it ends up (4chan comes to mind.) Of course, if you just want to go to some largely unmoderated forum with barely any rules, you can go to 4chan or something like that.

Law and order exists for a reason, and even the government. People are unable of acting adequately if there are no limits to what they are allowed to do. They need someone to tell them what to do. Even morals exist for this reason, for creating order. It's not out of "niceness." The existence of morals is in the government's favor because, without them, laws would be the only real limit, and see for yourself just how many people don't care or don't realize at all the consequences of their actions already, even with such restrictions (criminals.)

The only reason why modern morality is so different from the medieval one is because the current state of the world doesn't favor it. A lot of things changed, with the globalization, the Internet, the more advanced military techonology, and so on. There's not as much of a need for soldiers because modern weapons and war vehicles largely decrease the need for it. In the medieval ages, human personnel was everything. That's one of the reasons why people had to grow being more desensitized and having a more warmongering mentality.

Also, war just isn't as frequent as in those times, and there are more restrictions in place. Now it isn't that easy to go around conquering and annexing everything. Way too much changed, so of course the government can no longer enforce the same kind of values and expect them to work in the modern world. That doesn't mean they are being nice. They are not. The government is no one's friend.

I was surprised that they did not even allow the thought that they could pass by and not interfere in the private conversation of two fools.

Because it's both a fucking stupid and completely immoral thing to say to someone. And when it's posted on a public forum it's hardly a private conversation. Why do you think rules exist?

So from that quote, "that which is falling should also be pushed!” means that if someone is suicidal, you should encourage them to end it? If that's what it means, then I can't say I would encourage someone that is "falling" considering it, nor would I give them that final "push!"

In some circumstances, especially palliative care, while most don't directly push (over the edge) they do often push just enough to make it comfortable, where the inevitable result is falling. In other instances, I can see how jumping from a burning building might be a better option than burning to death, both figuratively and literally.

My own view is that people should decide for themselves. If someone would fall, just from being told to, then they have bigger concerns. They would do better to have not gotten involved in that kind of discussion in the first place, as well as worked on an alternate solution. Of course if someone has considered all options and has come to a decision, I would neither push, nor prevent them from falling.

As for the ban etc. People like to pile on in righteous anger. Blaming other people. Then enjoy their suffering. I also commented in that thread, and still think it should be handled on a case by case basis. I have also seen people troll and bait in groups on other forums where they skirt the rules, but bait their target into breaking them, then report them, and downvote etc.

Anyway, this is just a place to give away games. Most of the time that's all that happens. I'm not overly interested in getting involved in drama, politics, or culture wars. Most people have already made up their minds, and are not interested in changing them.

I do, technically, agree that everything wrong needs to be corrected (not necessarily punished). However, where I completely disagree with the Nietch is that I am not going to be the one to do the correcting.

I was surprised that they did not even allow the thought that they could pass by and not interfere in the private conversation of two fools.

If it was private sure, I could see that.

But it's not. And more so it's part of this community.

I believe that when someone tells you how they are, you listen.

That's like saying that which is cracked should be smashed.
That which is smashed, should be ground into dust...

Seems rather hateful, and lazy at the same time.

I wouldnt say to always step into the way of a falling object, as sometimes they need to fall to learn their lesson. But if your life experience tells you the object in question will never recover from it's fall, and you have the power to do so, it's your 'noblesse oblige' to attempt to lessen the fall. Possibly even going as far to share wisdom for the object to grow

The only other option is to sacrifice that which falls. But i see no value in pushing it to do so faster.

1. Toxic behaviours shouldn't be allowed. If you don't care about it, it's your opinion and you're free to act consequently. Most of us here want a healthy and positive discussion where people exchange their points of view. Go to FGF and read their statement about toxic behaviour. Also see about "Paradox of tolerance".
   1 bis. You can have toxic behaviour without insulting or telling people to go fuck themselves. So it's not about semantics or wording. Microviolences can be so damaging (and no, it's not a fad word, it's a reality).

2. Toxic behaviour shouldn't be allowed because more people than you think (I made that affirmation judging what you've said) don't have the mental tools to deal with things like "go fuck yourself" or even "your argument is stupid" and indeed they can be driven to negative feelings. Their life hasn't been easy or normal or whatever you call it. Some (I know of) simply grew up without learning or having someone to teach themselves these tools. Others (I know of) might have had the tools if life/people wouldn't have destroyed their lifes with bulling, disfunctional families, and/or whatever, and leave them with little but weakness, no self-esteem, low to no tolerance to personal attacks, emotional inestability and thin skin, paranoid attitude, and way more. Plus, getting out of there is NOT easy. Psichologists or therapists (I know of) often find people who can only help partially because whatever; cases can be so different, we're not programmed in the same way nor we keep the same state over our life. So your affirmation that people should grow "balls" (I guess that's what you meant) is really beffudling and not well thought before written, as if all people had the means to do all you think they should do - they don't. Plus, saying that in the Men's Health Month is borderline insensitive. It's the attitude (I know of) from people who tell you "if you're depressed it's because you want" with zero empathy. But then when they are in trouble (someone close passing out, a break-up, losing an important job, whatever) they feel justified and don't you dare to tell them what they threw over you when you needed support. In your words I read "if this affects you, it's your fault" with zero empathy. And specially bad is that you only see two choices. And really ludicrous that you think that a society without insulting would be "sterile".

3. Toxic behaviour shouldn't be allowed on the premise of personal opinions on a public forum. Just because I answer to your comment doesn't mean it's private. We can have an exchange of comments and a conversation between the two, but it's not private nor anonymous; anyone, even not members of SG, can read it. But many people twist the situation to their advantage; to push their opinion, to justify their (obviously obvious) errors, or to try to demostrate that they have the right to do so. And you seem to be on their side. I don't know if you've done so in this thread, but I think you'd be on the side to delete all those rules who prevent our right to treat the others as we want, specially from the safe side of the Internet: distance. One extreme situation I witnessed was someone in a public forum defending his right (I remember it was a he) to say whatever he wanted because the entrance and usage of the forum was free and thus they couldn't enforce their rules on him. If he had paid to enter and use the forum, he would follow the rules. What I always thought of that situation was that if he ever paid to enter a service with forum, he'd say he paid to use the service, not to follow absurd rules. My opinion is that your argument(s) about privacy can't apply here at all, to the point that I wonder why you decided to mention that. It's in the rules. No insults, no toxic behaviour. Don't like the rules? Go away or discuss about them in a mature matter, don't reduce them to one single situation. (I've not read all the thread, but this seems to go well with your statements before I got tired of them.)

4. That quote is slightly out of context, and still open to interpretation. Sidenote: the whole part deal both with the What, the material, and with people later. Strange that you chose the first sentence which, with the following ones, deal with the material in an interesting but somewhat aged perspective, at least to me; similar quotes to "we should rebuild over the ruins" have been uttered since classic Greece? Before, in ancient China? Who knows. Later, about people (third line deals with both material in the first sentence and with people in the second, so I'm skipping it as it actually doesn't say anything about people) "A prelude am I to better players, O my brothers" (my interpretation) says that the weak should leave place to new, stronger people. This is somewhat recurrent in Nietzsche's work, which I always considered insensitive in many aspects of life. Now re-read point 2 in this comment with today's points of view. Should we allow the stronger to abuse of their strength and bully the weak? Should we push the weak aside, or more towards Nietzsche's attitude, down the cliff? Would you like to be treated like that if something put your life upside down and needed help, wanted that there were rules or people who prevent your situation, or could help you? Nietzsche's approach is that you should be pushed, and it has nothing to do with grow balls. Your partner dies and your life crumbles. Some can go through it. Some can't. And no one is prepared and ready to overcome all punches that life can throw at you.

5. This thread title is absurd. It seems it's going to talk about something important from a wide perspective. And then you go about something relatively small compared to the title, and don't give any meaningful reflection, with farfetched arguments that most people wouldn't agree, often insisting in "facts" without really giving any argument, good or bad. "This is like this; if you don't agree, put the arguments yourself." What a wonderful discussion about the will of humankind (sarcasm and Internet don't go well, but I think you get it).

6. I'm going to hide this thread and I'll not read any answer to my comment. Why? Because I choose to, reasons are private. I've put my opinion and I could have written more, but I've already wasted enough energy with these shenanigans. I couldn't stop myself, reasons are private, and it's my fault.

This is way too much pseudo philosophy for my weekend plans

Nietzsche probably used that quote in a very specific context (if I ventured a guess, probably something about the failure of religious institutions). Without context a quote is pretty much meaningless, or a meme at best.

The poll should had included the "no punishment" option.

I'm not sure why this turned into if it's ok or not to offend someone or up to which level of offensiveness should be allowed BUT this wasn't your question.

While Nietzsche isn't my forte, and I do find him a bit depressing (which is strange considering he was against pessimism), he does have a lot of good points. This quote is a bit of a double-edged sword. In my eyes, going case by case might prove useful. Outweighing what is probably the better solution. In context to the poll, I don't like that it didn't include this option but what I didn't like the most were the replies there and here. Because the OP's question was how long of a punishment I can somewhat accept that in his mind the "no punishment" wasn't an option. But the replies and on what people focused on there and here.. Nah..

Freedom of speech should be of out most importance. All else, can be debated and fixed later (insults etc) but you take away someone right to speak, you are starting a wave of consequences you reeeally don't want.. And it has philosophers and brilliant people that have explained why multiple times over the course of thousands of years..
Yet here we are, 2024, discussing this.. Disappointment -.-

First off, Nietzsche's works aren't uncontroversial, are clearly outdated and have been abused.
That aside, the first part of the paragraph you quoted from, is just about things (which/that), so it can be interpreted as motivation for change, improvement and evolution. The ruin that gets replaced by a new building, old-fashioned clothing being sorted out, a company with an outdated business model closing down.
Then there's the second part of the paragraph, in which Zarathustra celebrates his success over other people and tells his listeners to go for it themselves. Considering that you might get left behind if you don't adapt to changes, it's already a consequence of the first part.
The figure of flying/falling fits into it given that there had been only a few poor attempts back then, but also for striving for the best.

Nietzsche seemed to be into genealogy, Darwin's theories and slaves as a foundation for scientific and cultural creation. However, if you require slaves for progress, you can't kill them (all). In another part of Zarathustra it's stated that humankind would need to become more evil to prosper. It would be interesting to know if he would still have written something like that after the world wars and the atomic bombs.
Despite of rules, social welfare and protection of minorities we still have people which could be viewed as ubermensch or at least on the way to it: stars in sports and culture, super rich people, we still have aristocrats and we are just discussing a person which died 124 years ago. Most democracies are indirect, power is centralised. Nietzsche would maybe still dislike them, but I don't see the "human evolution is hindered by broad masses" theme.

Exaggerated derivation of the quote:
If someone is beaten down by a gang, would you go kick the victim's head? He obviously fell/failed/lost already anyway and seems to be not useful for society anymore. Oof?
Yes, your example regarding drug addicted people explains your view better. However, you still learned something from it, so time and energy wasn't wasted completely. You might regret not leaving them earlier, but it was your own decision. Now you can ignore it, leave it to professionals or just offer short-termed basic help if you encounter it again.

Now regarding the occasion why you created this thread:
How does telling someone to kill themself lead to scientific or cultural progress? I'm asking, because that would be the justification, right?
The words aren't censored, they can still be used in different context. You can even use them this way, but there might be consequences. Freedom of speech protects you from consequences by the government, not from different opinions, dislikes or bans on privately owned websites.

And just like someone shouldn't take those words from a stranger on the internet seriously, a two days ban on a single website is not a big deal either.

“Don't do unto others what you don't want done unto you.” is a very, very reasonable guideline on the basics for some simple coexistence.
You may think you wouldnt mind someone telling you that sort of thing at all. Okay, thats you.
Im glad youre in no position where someone saying something like that couldve worsen your state of being or be the turning point for actually doing it
I wonder if you would have the same opinion if you were at rock bottom, in a terrible mental state.

I attempted suicide once. Actually attempted and it wasnt the usual fake-attempts for calling attention either, i had set things up to not even be found easily. It was ugly, not painless, i aborted halfway and in the hospital i learned i was very close to the point where it wouldve been fatal or leave me crippled for life.
Back then, before and some time after that im sure some people telling me something like that would likely trigger me- i couldve done it earlier and for awhile i couldve tried again. Took me some years until i could say i was out of that risk.

I was young, dumber and more imature. That is the stupidiest and worse thing someone can do- not only to thenselves but to everyone around then. I had cases somewhat close to me of suicides and i know how it can wreck entire families...
Words have power. What seems like empty words, 'just internet fight' can under the right cirscunstances pack that kind of punch. For people in those kinds of states small offenses and heck even innocuous words can be interpreted in devastating ways.

"that which is falling should also be pushed" would sound very different from someone on the floor, really down on the receiving end of it.

Frankly Nietzsche wasnt exactly stable emotionally and shows clear signs of projecting his discontent with society, religion and so on rationalizing - wich can be good sure- but to me later in life i strongly feel he failed to realize how much of that was coming from his emotions toward the subjects and not reason proper.
Ive only read the antichrist and zarathustra in my teens, but it was only after all my depression and even the suicide attempt (and after i overcame it) that my take on Nietzsche changed- to someone who was more emotionally charged and how much that wouldve been affecting his conclusions. Talking from experience depression distorts things. I too tried to rationalize everything- heck i still do- and frankly adjusted what i wanted and what i felt in sound arguments... that were BS.

I recall leaving some of my peers (friends and family) without good retorts to my cynical conclusions - wich today i can easily refute... And i was a teenager, above average inteligence at most. Nietzsche was definetly high iq if not an genius- he could definetly craft discourse and arguments to justify anything, wich he did. I wonder if life turned different for him, for better on a personal level or the state of his time improved if he wouldnt change his tune. I bet he would- cynical still but i imagine he would notice the flaws of his previous works and build further upon then or change some of his views

And im not sure he ever used one of those quotes in this kind of context.
It does make more sense if were talking about systems, beliefs, institutions - if one wants to improve, if society/humanity can improve we will need to tear some walls and pillars down. Whats decadent then sure should be pushed.
People tough? To carry that as a maxim to live by, if we did that collectively humanity wouldnt even had reached where were at. Imagine if that was part of our culture throught out history- the first time anyone or anything stumbles to fall the rest would push then over... It would create an even more antagonistic uncoperative society with even more sabotaging.

Im a functional member to society now. So what, i shouldnt be? Should someone had pushed me over it? A kid none the less

This is the internet. The person on the other side could be young and imature, we cant know their state of mind and heck what we type cant even convey tone like voice face to face.

Sometimes tough love is better than no love, but there is no reason to act cruelly about it.

I'd be more surprising if someone has access to the internet and somehow doesn't know who Friedrich Nietzsche is, specially on western countries. As for the quote, the answer is quite simple! It depends.

Regarding that other topic, is because current western principles dictate, that a comment like that shouldn't be ignored and in more simple terms, something like that violates point 4 of our community guidelines, so, it has to be punished, for how long thou, it's at the discretion of the staff.

I do agree with her that it was an incredibly shitty thing, but i also believe this to be the moderators' job to handle. Public outcries and randoms wanting to take the rules in their own hands ends up making things sloppier than before.