Look, I hate beets. I find them ODIOUS and immoral. They make me want to vomit, that's how visceral my reaction is to them.
Does that mean I shouldn't patronize my grocer because he sells beets, fresh, canned and jarred?
Should I demand he stop selling them, because they make me ill?
You want--out of some entirely pointless "principle" -- the site owners to forgo a portion of their INCOME, the food on their plate, the cash that ensures their survival, so you can have some sort of stupid "satisfaction" by "controlling" nothing more than WHERE people say nasty things. You aren't going to stop them--you're just going to have a harder time tracking them.
That nastiness won't disappear if that site gets shut down....but the admins having the ability to know who's who in the zoo will disappear.
It's just not cool to tell other people what to do. I stay away from those hate threads at that site. You can do that, too. In fact, ANYONE can.
If you really want that site shut down, you write the admins a check and reimburse them for all the hours they spent creating it, and all the money they are earning--and will earn-- from the site, and an additional sum for the damage to their reputations by pulling out of the enterprise, making them look a bit, well, flaky and unbusinesslike.
That will probably be a pretty big check you'd need to write. Can you afford it? And what will you do when the disruptors go to other sites to plot and mock--will you write a check to that site owner as well?
You know, my view of this is that No Good Deed Goes Unpunished. The admins here created a site for the malcontents who want robust conversation but can't abide by the TOS. It made things a LOT nicer here. Why close down that site and bring those jerks back here?
Makes NO damn sense.
Of course, we could always demand that the US government fire up an "internet police" to monitor objectionable content, and censor anything "offensive" to people--how does that sound?
= new reply since forum marked as read