Thanks for the response, that all sounds reasonable. One more question:

What happens if I attack someone’s actions and they feel personally attacked? For example, I might say that driving a petrol car, in 100% of cases, will contribute to a child’s chance of developing lung cancer. Another commenter who drives a car may then subjectively feel that they are being called a child murderer. I have stated an unbiased fact, but they have come to a completely logical conclusion and feel upset by that conclusion. So do we act as though I stated the emotional conclusion, or just the unbiased fact?

I’m concerned about the definitions of some of the terms in these rules

• What does it mean to be kind? Do you have to agree with everyone? Are you allowed to say the fuck word?

• What does it mean to attack other people? Are we talking ad hominem, or is making an argument with a stern tone of voice an attack?

• Where is the line between opinion and action drawn? Is it okay to attack people for driving cars? That’s not an opinion, it’s an action, and it kills people, but I have a feeling certain people would say no anyway

• What is a double post? Do you mean repost or crosspost?

The BITE classification was invented in order to justify hatred of small religions, by taking a word that already had a meaning (cult) and attaching a second, pejorative meaning to it. It’s like if I write a fantasy novel with a species of evil creatures called jews. Jew is already a word, and it’s a horrific act of religious persecution to take a pre-existing word for marginalised religions and spin it into an unrelated negative.

No, cults are small religions, this is a big religion