That's not the point. The issue is that this is the sentence you want completed. Other posters have other versions of this sentence that they'd ask substituting 'homosexuality', 'mental health', 'race', '9/11 victims', etc. for 'women'.

And if we removed everybody that was hostile towards a group of people that someone thought was worth protecting this forum would be empty.

I don't think he has to prove that we have different interpretations. That's definitely true.

I'm interested in probing the size and nature of that difference.

No, and that kind of thinking is pretty stupid.

If you can't tell the difference between using inappropriate language, like our friend Paul up above, and being hostile, I don't know what to tell you.

But yes, we should not welcome people who are hostile towards other races. They have st*rmfr*nt for their forum-going needs. Why would 2+2 want to try to dip into their market share?

No, we don't needs people hostile towards homosexuals. They can go join the westboro cult. Again, why do we need them?

Bill Maher has a great line about this: Don't become so tolerant that you tolerate intolerance.

The righteous fire is burning bright right now. Bunch of good warriors running around like headless chickens searching for their next sacrifice in the name of justice.

here's something to do sputty: find one person ever who has used social justice warrior as a pejorative who isn't a bigot.

I can wait. I know it's not possible to find, but I'll wait.

Anais, if you disagree with my opinion, cool. But I'm not changing it for PU anytime soon and I don't really have anything else to add.

Except maybe if you feel like you want a thread that allows conversation about sexism without people like Sputnik, start your own thread with your own rules. I don't even care if that rule ends up just being - no sputnik.

Edit: Its not even that hard. AsianNit ended up just using the "Report Post" button to notify me that posts should be deleted. Worked fine for me and it seems like not much work for you.

You asked if there's non-blatant forms of racism, LDO.

And. No. If people are being racist (see Mat Sklansky's post in that talk about racist experience) with any intent of being racist then they may just need to be pointed in the right direct.

You should be banned just for giving good trolls a bad name.

reporting posts seems to have about a 50-75% success rate ime

but again, if the rules are "there are no rules", then why should reporting any posts work?

Because if you start your own thread you get to set your own rules. It means reporting of posts (by you) will be 100% successful in your own thread.

Anais, I just deleted two posts from Sputnik where he clearly wasn't adding anything to my thread. It's quite satisfying.

Imo the first one was ok since it was an answer to something directly adressed towards me. The 2nd one i fully agree because it was just riling Anais and not needed.

We have lots of threads for making fun of each other, I'm going to keep this one just for moderating discussions.

These are the kinds of guys still being allowed to post here.

Technically, he didn't say there was no such thing as date rape, just that he agrees with the idea. We can't possibly punish someone for agreeing with a blatantly bigoted idea, amirite? LETTER OF THE LAW, NOT SPIRIT

I have no problem banning mark for that. Especially given his previous post on rape.

I mean progress, but a temp ban? And it took a public post (did you not see the notification?) to get you to do it?

His account has been banned for **** like this before, there should be user notes to that effect. He's not going to change because of a temp ban, clear spot to just nuke the guy.

Lol Dids. You reported the post about 2 hours before I dealt with it. I don't live my life around modding PU.

To quote the great Bender of Futurama fame:

"Just when I thought I figured out you biological creatures, it's something else!"

There's a clear a difference between Sputnik and Mark. Sputnik has posts that have at least the appearance of making a logical argument. How genuine they are isn't up to me (as a moderator of PU) to decide (your opinion may differ).

Someone reported Sputnik's post about Malala, which while maybe he's just doing that to rile you people up, could at least be considered a legitimate discussion topic. If you don't like that discussion or think he's not being genuine - then ignore him. But I'm not going to silence him based on someone's personal opinion about his intentions. This was made clear during the last brouhaha where I was modded. I know some of you don't like that, but I'm not changing that approach in the near future.

Mark advances no arguments. He's clearly just trolling, and worse, he does it by advocating and justifying rape. I'm not cool with that, so there he goes.

Well exactly- that shouldn't be OK. You see what's happening right before you and you're still ****ing up. Transparent lip service in the name of not appearing to be an outright troll (because I guess just being a hateful bigot is cool) should not be enough to duck a ban.

NOPE. Sputnik doesn't make legitimate attempts at conversation.

Oh, it does.

Name one argument sputnik has advanced.

Well, when he linked to a recognized hate site, he was putting forth the argument that..

Uh, nothing really. He was just linking it to. Probably for no reason whatsoever. Just randomly linking things and it happened to a hate site. Could happen to anyone.

ban everybody asking for bans in unchained