Why couldn't we openly enshrine double standards about mindfulness when discussing a certain specific rule, like Rule 2, just like we do about behavior in certain contentious topic threads vs normal threads? It could even be part of the rule itself: "extra mindfulness from the posters is expected, when discussing the specifics of this rule, and outright disagreeing with its need to exist can be considered equivalent to breaking it".
It would be something horribly undemocratic, yes, something I would never tolerate in a real life political system, but a forum isn't a democracy in the first place. I realize the irony of saying that while doubting the benefit of the stance taken by the Directors, but while the final say will always be theirs, I assume they are actually interested in making the majority of guests in their house feel that their concerns have been addressed. SV was founded on the principle, that all rules can be debated and questioned freely, yes, but apparently that's not what the majority of the (at least vocally politically active) userbase and Councilors seem to want to fully apply to the Rule 2 specifically, anymore.
Of course, the idea that even if you don't break the rule you can always at least question it, is something that comes naturally to people, so that's an issue when any first time offenses would need to be handled with great leniency - like with warnings, instead of points, depending on the context. Because the point would not be to be the "gotcha bigot!" "Thought Police" about it, like some people here were afraid, but to simply signal that slur justification debates, like the one that constantly seems to reemerge in this thread now, are unwanted and unwelcome.
What sort of allowed discussion would I even see happening about Rule 2 then? Mostly about the specifics about how its handled in the context of fictional works. For example: if somebody got hit with Rule 2 over their story, and someone expressed support over that in their profile - "I, for one, do think there was actually a clear separation between the words and thoughts of your characters vs your own beliefs" - then that would be the kind of disagreement with how Rule 2 got handled, that I think would be well within the line of acceptable behavior, neither breaking Rule 5.
forums.sufficientvelocity.com
