>Whatever your moral point, someone has the opposite moral point. People have many more than just the opposite moral point - they also have moral points that i

>Whatever your moral point, someone has the opposite moral point. People have many more than just the opposite moral point - they also have moral points that interact with any discussion in countless different ways, from different points of view, with different reasoning. >If you cave to one, your stand for the other and vice versa. Nonsense. There are more than two positions on any given issue. Here are three on Reddit/guns. 1. Allowing the Reddit alien on guns is wrong because guns are bad and allowing it is endorsement. 2. Allowing the Reddit alien on guns is right because guns are good. 3. Allowing the Reddit alien on guns is right because Reddit is a company that doesn't take positions on issues like this, because it's good to treat participants even-handedly when you're managing a diverse community. This applies even if you think they're wrong. Whether or not guns are good or bad is irrelevant in determining whether the logo usage should be allowed, because the higher principle of even-handedness takes precedence. If you don't go with 3, you're saying that Reddit is morally endorsing everything they allow on their platform. Which also means the phone company, credit card company, banks, and even the government are endorsing everything they don't use their power to prevent. Which is a view that drives straight to a world of pure tyranny - no principle, only power, with every actor using all available levers of control to suppress any view they disagree with. That's Lenin's "Who, whom" view of politics, and we see how it ended when he gained power. No, no. Live and let live. Treaty of Westphalia. We figured this out 300 years ago; let's not forget the lessons please.