> the seem to want to attract articles that are not mainstream because they are ethically and morally outrageous to most people (say bigotry, cruelty, eugenics, etc.)
Some ideas are considered outrageous because people fail to distinguish between is and ought. I want to know what is true; I'm confident enough in my basic values that they won't crumble when faced with inconvenient empirical facts.
Of course, the question of should this be published could have a different answer from should I bother reading this. Sometimes the gatekeepers aren't failing to distinguish between is and ought, they just don't trust others to make that distinction. Or at least, they don't trust enough others to make that distinction to prevent the information from doing serious harm. And sadly they may often be right.
Some ideas are considered outrageous because people fail to distinguish between is and ought. I want to know what is true; I'm confident enough in my basic values that they won't crumble when faced with inconvenient empirical facts.
Of course, the question of should this be published could have a different answer from should I bother reading this. Sometimes the gatekeepers aren't failing to distinguish between is and ought, they just don't trust others to make that distinction. Or at least, they don't trust enough others to make that distinction to prevent the information from doing serious harm. And sadly they may often be right.